Contemporary popular discourses about Islam, shari’a and Islamic law in the West is often filled with the issues of terrorism, anti-democracy, human rights violation and women’s minor status in Islam, which all lead into negative perception. Unlike such popular views, Western scholars perceive shari’a from various perspectives. They are quite critical to shari’a in a positive sense. This article discusses Western scholarly discourses on shari’a by comparing the thoughts and works of two most prominent figures, Wael B. Hallaq and M. Barry Hooker, who always concern with shari’a, Islamic law and related social issues, such modernity, colonialism and legal system. Based on the model of the study of public figure and grounded its main data on Hallaq’s and Hooker’s main work, this study shows that these two scholars promote idealistic and contextual perception on shari’a. From the ideal point of view, shari’a is seen a product of scholarly independent work by Muslim jurists, whose authority now is unfortunately taken over by the state. The contextual view regards shari’a as flexible Islamic religious or legal norms that are adaptable to the changing social and political environments so they are easily transferrable into the educational, legal and political system in a country like Indonesia, entailing what is called “national mazhab”.