The aim of the present study was to conduct a comparative study of the concept of justice in Islamic sociology and Western sociology, focusing on the views of Martyr Morteza Motahari and Michael Walzer. In order to achieve a model of justice from the perspective of these two thinkers, three knowledges were considered: "philosophical" (including epistemology, anthropology, and ontology), "paradigmatic," and "scientific" (including theory and model), and the data were collected and analyzed using a comparative method. The findings of this study show that despite the commonalities of the two thinkers in giving importance to society and community in the perception of social benefits and the principles of its distribution, Martyr Motahari considers the rights of society to be prior to the rights of individuals and does not agree with relativism and maximal pluralism in benefits and principles of distribution. He also believes in the existence of some universal and fixed perceptions of justice, contrary to Walzer's approach. On the other hand, Walzer, by enumerating eleven specific areas of justice (membership, security and welfare, money and goods, position, hard work, leisure, education, kinship and love, recognition and formality, divine grace and political power), emphasizes maintaining the independence of each area from "domination" and "monopoly." However, Shahid Motahari, by stating three general areas of justice (divine justice, individual justice and social justice), believes in the existence of an "all-round" relationship of influence between them in a structure where divine justice is the foundation of human justice and individual justice is the foundation of social justice.