The debates of Imam al Ridā (A) with scholars of various religions and sects during the era of al Maʾmūn represent some of the most significant examples of rational dialogue within the Islamic tradition. These debates exhibit systematic methods of reasoning, persuasion, and linguistic interaction management. Examining these exchanges through the lens of applied linguistics can reveal new dimensions of their discursive mechanisms and communicative strategies. The present study aims to explain how Grice’s “Cooperative Principle” is employed in the Ridavian debates and seeks to analyze the ways in which the four conversational maxims—quantity, quality, relation, and manner—are fulfilled or intentionally flouted within these dialogues. The data have been collected from reliable historical and narrational sources reporting the debates, and analyzed using a descriptive analytical approach grounded in Gricean applied discourse analysis. The findings demonstrate that Imam al Ridā’s (A) discourse is largely characterized by strict adherence to the maxims of relation and quality, which contributes to maintaining the logical coherence of the dialogue and enhancing the epistemic credibility of the arguments. At the same time, purposeful violations or suspensions of certain maxims—especially quantity and manner—are observed, functioning rhetorically and argumentatively to generate effective conversational implicatures that reinforce audience persuasion. This indicates that, beyond their theological and doctrinal richness, the Ridavian debates display a deliberate and coherent structure from a linguistic interactional perspective. Based on the results, Grice’s Cooperative Principle provides an efficient analytical framework for examining communicative mechanisms and discursive strategies in Islamic debate texts.Grice’s Cooperative Principle provides an efficient analytical framework for examining communicative mechanisms and discursive strategies in Islamic debate texts.