In the scholarly tradition of persuasion studies, language and speech acts play a pivotal role in the formulation of social and identity-based concepts. As a discursive mechanism, rhetoric provides a significant locus for the production and orientation of concepts such as gender. Adopting a comparative-analytical approach, this paper examines the relationship between two epistemological paradigms of Western rhetoric—comprising its classical and modern branches—and Quranic rhetoric in their engagement with the aforementioned concepts. The research methodology is predicated on an analysis of three fundamental axes: purpose (telos), mechanism, and audience analysis. The theoretical framework draws upon classical rhetorical texts (Aristotle and Cicero), modern theories (Burke and Derrida), and authoritative Quranic exegeses (Al-Mizan, alongside the perspectives of Al-Rummani and Al-Sakkaki). The findings reveal that classical rhetoric, operating from a biologistic and essentialist perspective, regards women as lacking the requisite ethos for entry into the domain of public oratory. In contrast, modern rhetoric conceptualizes gender as a socio-critical construct, articulated across three feminist discourses—radical, liberal, and socialist—which uniformly aim at persuasion, the redistribution of discursive power, and the transformation of societal attitudes. Conversely, the system of Quranic rhetoric and Islamic wisdom does not adopt either of these two paradigms; rather, it redefines the distinction between man and woman through the metaphor of conjugal pairing (zawjiyyah), while framing the ultimate purpose of rhetoric as divine inimitability (i‘jāz) and the guidance of humanity toward proximity to God.