The question of the origin of human rights is among the most fundamental and controversial issues in the philosophy of law, as the perspective adopted toward it shapes the framework and orientation of an entire legal system. Western schools of thought, primarily grounded in the concepts of social contract and collective will, define the origin of rights through legal positivism, wherein the validity of legal rules depends on social consensus. According to this view, rights exist only when society collectively agrees upon them, and otherwise, no rights are recognized. Such an approach disregards real interests and harms as well as the ontological structure of human beings, reducing legal propositions to contractual constructs imposed upon individuals and society. In contrast, Neo-Sadraean philosophers, drawing on Islamic thought, argue that the origin of human rights lies in the Divine. From this standpoint, legal norms are instituted by God in accordance with real interests and harms and in harmony with the ontological structure of humans and society. This study, employing a descriptive-analytical method, examines the origin of human rights in Western and Islamic legal systems from the Neo-Sadraean perspective. The findings demonstrate that the ontological argument (God’s absolute ownership of existence) and the anthropological argument (human incapacity to attain full knowledge of human existence) both affirm that only God can be the source of human rights. Thus, whereas legal positivism confines the origin of rights to social contract, the Neo-Sadraean view situates their true and ultimate foundation in the Divine will.