The ambiguous (mutashābih) verses of the Qur’an, due to their semantic plurality and their close connection with theological discussions, constitute one of the most significant areas in which methodological challenges in Qur’anic exegesis arise.One such challenge is the imprecise use of exegetical traditions transmitted in connection with these verses and the conflation of tafsīr, taʾwīl, baṭn, jarī, and taṭbīq. Adopting a descriptive-analytical method and a critical approach, the present study offers a methodological critique of the use of exegetical traditions in understanding the ambiguous verses of the Qur’an. It seeks to demonstrate that not every tradition cited under a Qur’anic verse is necessarily intended as a literal interpretation or as an explanation of the verse’s direct meaning; rather, it may pertain to taʾwīl, baṭn, jarī, taṭbīq, argumentation, or the identification of one of the verse’s instances. Accordingly, the validity of employing traditions in the interpretation of ambiguous verses requires, in addition to examining their chains of transmission and sources, identifying the semantic function of the tradition, presenting it before the clear and decisive verses (muḥkamāt) of the Qur’an, assessing it in light of definitive reason, and taking into account the context and linguistic indicators of the verse. The findings of the study indicate that the most important methodological errors in this field include treating an applicative tradition as a literal interpretation, neglecting the clear verses in understanding a tradition, detaching the tradition from the context of the verse, and imposing theological or sectarian presuppositions upon the verse and the tradition. The examination of narrative examples transmitted under ambiguous verses shows that an authoritative tradition can play a role in explicating such verses only when it is employed in its proper position and in connection with the Qur’anic system as a whole, authoritative Sunnah, reason, and the principles governing textual understanding.