An Analytical Examination, Comparative Assessment, and Critical Evaluation of Choice Theory in the Holy Quran and Psychology

Abstract

This research aims to systematically analyze, juxtapose, and critically evaluate choice theory as presented in the Holy Quran and psychological discourse. Employing a qualitative methodology, the study operates within a critical paradigm and adopts a comparative-analytical framework. The investigation identifies points of convergence, areas of contention, and original Quranic perspectives about the core tenets of choice theory. Cumulatively, the findings encompass 60 instances of agreement, 29 critical objections, and 19 innovative Quranic viewpoints. 

The study meticulously examines each constituent element of choice theory—internal control, accountability, intrinsic human needs, the desired world, perceptual mechanisms, and behavioral systems—by delineating overlapping stances, Quranic critiques of the theory’s propositions, and novel exegetical insights derived from the Quran. Key similarities, criticisms, and original contributions were systematically outlined in a structured format, supplemented by tabulated references that specify verse citations, surah names, and concise contextual explanations. 

Within the domain of internal control, the analysis revealed 10 commonalities, 3 critical rebuttals, and 2 unprecedented Quranic perspectives. The dimension of responsibility yielded 6 shared principles, 3 critiques, and 2 innovative interpretations. Regarding fundamental human needs, the study not only introduced two uniquely Quranic imperatives (eternity and divine cognition) but also documented 28 points of alignment, 13 Quranic counterarguments, and 10 novel theoretical propositions. The examination of the ideal world component produced 7 congruent viewpoints, 6 critiques, and 3 original theoretical contributions. The perceptual system component demonstrated 4 areas of agreement, 2 critical evaluations, and 1 newly articulated perspective. Similarly, the behavioral system component was characterized by 5 shared positions, 2 critiques, and 1 groundbreaking theoretical assertion.