<p>This article develops an integrated analytical framework that combines both pragma-dialectics with interactive and interactional metadiscourse to examine the complexity of Qur’anic dialogic argumentation. It contends that Qur’anic argumentation functions not only as a rational process of resolving differences but also as a normative and persuasive discourse grounded in ethical and epistemic principles. While the pragma-dialectical approach presents a systematic framework for identifying argumentative structures and standpoints, and stages of critical discussion, it does not fully account for the Qur’an’s reflexive engagement with moral reasoning, evaluative guidance, and claims to Divine truth. To address this broad gap, the article incorporates a metadiscursive perspective, focusing on how the Qur’an frames argumentation through stance-taking, engagement markers, and normative cues. By conducting a qualitative textual analysis of select verses, it demonstrates that the Qur’an synthesizes procedural and rhetorical elements, engaging the interlocutors in a persuasive discourse which is both structurally organized and morally framed. This dual approach reveals how pragma-dialectical rules interface with metadiscursive strategies to shape the Qur’an’s theological and moral reasoning. The findings show that neither framework alone is sufficient to capture the multifaceted nature of Qur’anic argumentative discourse. By addressing this limitation, the article presents a compendious coverage of how the Qur’an constructs and regulates its dialogic argumentation whose nature and structure are more feasibly analyzable through a synergic framework of pragma-dialectics and metadiscourse, exhibiting patterns consistent with their norms. It concludes by recommending a broader application of this synergy across genres, domains, and discourses.</p>