This article presents a critical typology of Muslim thinkers’ engagements with modernity by moving beyond the reductive binary of rejection versus adoption. Its main claim is that disputes over Islam and modernity are not merely ideological; they are grounded in deeper hermeneutical mechanisms that regulate the relation between text, history, reason, and institution. Drawing on Mohammed Arkoun’s distinction between the foundational text and the exegetical corpus, his notion of the thinkable and the unthought, and his emphasis on the historicity of reason and institutions, the article formulates four rules of hermeneutical accountability: textual-linguistic, historical, rational-normative, and functional-institutional. It then analyzes four types of engagement: defensive-confrontational, coalitionary-reformist, critical-reconstructive, and combinatory. The article argues that none of these types is sufficient in isolation. The proposed model is a two-step process: first, a critical examination of accumulated exegetical capital and a reconstruction of the horizons of production and reception; second, a reviewed combinatory engagement that translates interpretive rules into transparent institutional mechanisms in religious education, iftā’, and law-making. The result is a history-sensitive practical hermeneutics that accepts plurality only under the condition of accountability.