Several twentieth century Arab intellectuals and philosophers have attempted to produce novel readings of tradition while referring to Western thinkers. Among those, we can note Al-Jabri’s historical account influenced by Foucault’s archaeological and genealogical work. This can be most clearly noted in Naqd al-‘Aql al-Arabi, Nahnu wal Turath, and Madkhal Ila al-Qur’an al-Kareem. Yet Al-Jabri does not fully commit to the theoretical tools provided by the Western philosopher. The purpose of this paper will be to analyze the work of Al-Jabri in relation to Foucault while emphasizing the extent to which he has managed to free himself from a traditional conception of tradition. This relates to the more general and central question of what qualifies as a positive historical reading of Islam, and on what grounds can it make room for multiplicity and plurality. In order to fulfill this purpose, I will be putting forward an interpretation of the account of history that Foucault develops in his middle genealogical period. This will draw mostly on his work in Discipline and Punish, Nietzsche, Genealogy and History, and The History of Sexuality Volume I. Genealogy, as Foucault understands it, is opposed to the search for origins and pure essences. This appears to be the central divergence between the two, for while Foucault introduces genealogy for the purpose of critique, Al-Jabri uses history for the Kantian purpose of attempting to purify the consciousness of history from irrationality. This, for Al-Jabri, culminates in reviving Averroes’s rational critique. A more significant divergence appears here. Al-Jabri calls for effecting a divide between faith and reason through referring to Averroes’s The Decisive Treatise and showing how the medieval philosopher’s critique was interrupted by political events. Al-Jabri’s commitment to a rational discourse thus appears to be essential for his historical exegesis. Foucault’s genealogy, on the other hand, seeks to delegitimize rational discourse that has proven to be an outcome of exclusionary power relations. Al-Jabri, thus, manages to incorporate the historical approach of genealogy, while simultaneously transforming it into a historical critique of tradition that allows for tradition to be contemporaneous. For him, this rational historicity ought to allow for a transformation towards the modern. I argue that it is here that it is in this divergence that Al-Jabri’s main contribution to Arab thought should be recognized.