This research, with an analytical-logical approach, re-examines and extracts the argumentative pattern governing the “Manashida Hadith.” The Manashida incident in which Imam Ali (AS) claimed his right to caliphate in the Prophet’s Mosque (PBUH) and in the company of the great companions, citing narrated evidence and the virtues of the Prophet, is not merely a historical report; rather, it is an objective and innocent example of a systematic argument in defense of a fundamental right in complex circumstances.

Using the method of content analysis and utilizing the frameworks of the logic of dialogue and the etiquette of debate in the Islamic tradition, the present article shows that the Imam's argument follows a calculated five-stage structure: 1) establishing common ground with the audience, 2) posing a question of denial to awaken the conscience, 3) presenting certain premises (generally accepted texts and virtues), 4) requesting testimony and confession to deepen the audience's practical commitment, and 5) drawing a logical conclusion and calling to action. This structure indicates the use of the Socratic method (questioning), in which the conclusion is reached not by imposition, but by guiding the audience through their own acceptances.

The findings of this study indicate that the most important methodological features of this argumentation model include: relying on commonalities of narration, maintaining politeness and respect for the audience while being frank, avoiding false arguments, and targeting the collective conscience and internal logic of individuals.