This article undertakes a comparative study of the meaning of political justice within two major discourses: the "Islamic Revolution" and "liberal democracy". The central research question is how each of these discourses conceptualizes political justice, and whether there exists any potential for conceptual interaction or discursive convergence between these two narratives. To address this question, the study employs the discourse analysis method of Laclau and Mouffe, which focuses on how political concepts are constructed within discursive conflicts. The objectives of the research are threefold: to explain the key components of political justice in both discourses, to analyze their points of divergence or conflict, and to explore the possibility of discursive openness for mutual engagement between these two interpretations. The findings indicate that, in the discourse of the Islamic Revolution, political justice is intrinsically linked to the concepts of Wilayah (guardianship), divine justice, and the rejection of class and hegemonic domination. It derives its meaning in relation to Shari&lsquo ؛ a and Imamate. In contrast, within the discourse of liberal democracy, political justice is primarily defined in terms of individual freedoms, legal equality, and electoral participation, grounded in pragmatic rationality and the social contract. Nonetheless, through the lens of discursive interaction theory, it is possible to envision a dialogue between these two narratives in areas such as procedural justice, the right to participation,and human dignity.The article concludes that while fundamental conceptual antagonisms exist at the level of foundational principles, discursive engagement at intermediary and practical levels may be feasible under certain conditions