Ta’wil, as one of the foundational concepts in the Islamic exegetical tradition, has long been a subject of debate among Qur’anic commentators, theologians, mystics, and esoteric currents. On the one hand, the existence of deeper layers of meaning in the Holy Qur’an has been acknowledged in numerous exegetical and transmitted sources; on the other hand, the expansion of unrestrained interpretations detached from the apparent meaning of the verses has given rise to readings that may be described as excessive ta’wil. The main issue of this study is to clarify the boundary between methodical ta’wil and excessive interpretive tendencies in esoteric exegesis. Adopting a descriptive-analytical method and drawing on sources from Qur’anic studies, legal theory, and exegetical literature, the article first revisits key concepts such as ta’wil, zāhir (outward meaning), bātin (inward meaning), contextual indicators, and tafsir bi al-ra’y (interpretation based on personal opinion). It then distinguishes the criteria of valid ta’wil from the characteristics of interpretive excess. The findings indicate that the principal criteria for differentiating the two are preserving the connection with the apparent meaning of the verse, reliance on sound contextual evidence, attention to context, consistency with the language of the Qur’an, and the possibility of methodically evaluating the exegetical claim. By contrast, whenever an interpreter imposes preconceived sectarian or subjective meanings upon the text without sufficient evidence, ta’wil departs from its methodological course and approaches tafsir bi al-ra’y. The originality of this article lies in the fact that, rather than wholly rejecting esoteric exegesis or accepting