Despite its popularity in many of today’s discourses, the Shari'a has never been thoroughly studied as part of intellectual history. This is all the more surprising since already in 1965 an article by Wilfred Cantwell Smith argued, quite convincingly as some scholars have admitted, that the sharia did not play a notable role in the theological debates of the formative period nor did the term shari'a mean to the early theologians what it means today. Instead, he argued, that a change, which we are yet to fully conceive, in meaning as well as understanding of this concept has occurred. Little of this has been addressed in scholarship so far. Drawing on my current research project, I argue in this paper that treating the Shari'a as a ‘concept’ and studying it under conceptual premises would not only fill a gap in our knowledge of its intellectual development but would also lead to a deeper understanding of Shari'a’s characteristics, significance, and efficacy. From a linguistic perspective concepts refer to abstract or generalized ideas which shape and structure people’s intellectual world(s), influence their perception of reality and thereby affect their thinking and acting, their morals and beliefs. Hence, besides drawing attention to a much needed change of perspective in the field of Islamic legal and intellectual history, this paper will also demonstrate the gain in knowledge and in comparability of the results obtained when employing sound methodology. Using techniques from conceptual history and discourse analysis I will present some results of my research project, wherein I examine the ways in which three classical legal scholars of the 5th/11th century, al-Juwaini, al-Ghazali, al-Qadi 'Abd al-Jabbar, conceptualized the Shari'a. Ultimately, much of the Shari'a’s prominence and effectiveness seems to stem from it being used in the Mu'tazili-Ash'ari dispute to depict and disqualify Mu'tazili opinions as arising from the mind ('aqli), not disseminating from God, and therefore being susceptible to faults and weak in authority. Furthermore, there appears to be a detectable difference in meaning between the relevant terms of the concept of Shari'a (esp. shar' vs. shari'a). The above-mentioned scholars were apparently aware of those slight differences and used the terminology accordingly. Being understood as much more than law, rather as a comprehensive system of norms and values, the concept of Shari'a was used in a multitude of discourses to bolster claims and positions.