A great amount of available literature about justice researching in both system of thought of Islam and the West is allocated to distributive justice. Some scholars such as Plato, Aristotle, Thomas, Hume, Kant, Farabi, Avicenna, Algazel, Ibn-Khaldun, and also contemporary scholars such as Rawls, Nozick, Tabatabai and Sadr tried to present a clear and acceptable definition of it as well as explaining its concept. The writer believes that as we cannot ignore their success in this field, we cannot conceal the ambiguous points of the mentioned definitions as well. At least, one of the most basic problematic ambiguities of the defining justice as: “giving each his right” or according to Aristotle: “equal treatment with equals and unequal treatment with unequal” and also in view of owls: "justice as fairness" is their lack of content criterion. Clearly stating, although these definitions want every owner to achieve his right, they don’t specify clearly any criteria for their entitlement and don’t tell us specifically that who are equal and who are not? What is the criterion of equality and entitlement? Suggesting two distinct concepts of merit and entitlement by liberal thinkers for solving this problem also cannot be regarded as an appropriate solution. This problem reaches its peak when we want to pursue justice on a global scale, because proponents of liberalism, socialism and Islam have basic differences in explaining the concept of entitlement and determining the deserving person. In a descriptive- analytical way, this article tries to access a strategic proposal for solving mentioned problem. The authors intend to answer the question: what is the specific strategy of Islam for determining the criterion of justice? The research findings suggest that there are at least two specific strategies: referring to commonalities of religions, and intellectual statements. Islam emphasizes on convergence of religions and on their harmony in most areas and recognizes the wisdom a
