The concept of “right” is one of the most fundamental constructs in legal systems, with its roots embedded in differing ontological and philosophical foundations across traditions. This study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of the evolution of the concept of rights in Islamic jurisprudence and Western legal philosophy. It seeks to answer the question of how the conceptual and structural foundations of “right” have diverged in these two traditions and what implications these differences have for contemporary legal theorizing. The hypothesis of the research is that in Islamic jurisprudence, the notion of rights is understood in relation to obligation, Shari‘a, and the objectives of Islamic law, whereas in Western legal systems, rights are primarily grounded in individualism, autonomous rationality, and human dignity, gradually evolving from metaphysical frameworks to functional and institutional models. The method employed is comparative content analysis and critical reasoning, drawing on both classical and contemporary sources in each domain. The findings indicate that while both traditions have engaged in rethinking the notion of rights, Islamic jurisprudence remains anchored in a duty-based framework, whereas Western thought has moved toward hybrid, justice-oriented interpretations. This study offers a platform for intercultural dialogue and localization of legal theories.