The pursuit of happiness within Islam: a systematic review of two decades of research on religiosity and happiness in Islamic groups

ABSTRACT

This systematic literature review examines research on religiosity and happiness within the Muslim population. Earlier investigations predominantly focused on Christianity and happiness in Western countries and found a significant positive association. This literature review was conducted to investigate research exploring the relationship between religiosity and happiness among Muslims. A literature search identified 59 papers examining this relationship between the years 2000 and 2020. Standard quality assessment criteria were used to assess the quality of the selected papers. Each paper was scored by two independent researchers and several of the papers were excluded due to not meeting inclusion criteria or scoring below .55 in the quality assessment. Some 49 studies were included in this literature review, which found a positive correlation between happiness and religiosity within the Muslim population. Furthermore, most studies posited a significant relationship between the variables. This paper explores this suggested positive correlation further, highlights the limitations of the research, and discusses the implications of the findings.

KEYWORDS:

• Happiness
• religiosity
• satisfaction with life
• Muslims

Introduction

What are religiousness, religiosity, happiness, and well-being? Khenfer and Roux (2012) stated that terms such as religious involvement, religious commitment, religiousness, religiosity, and religious orientation are used to refer to the same concept. Ellor and McGregor (2011) described religiosity as indicating the importance of religion in an individual’s life, or the reflection of human characteristics. Hood et al. (2018) described religiosity as an individual’s fundamental belief about existence. Hill (2013) identified spirituality and religion as broad concepts, with a multitude of psychological constructs. Spiritual values are regarded as a central component of quality of life, by WHO (2001). There are five dimensions of religiosity suggested by Glock and Stark (1965). They are consequential, experiential, ideological, intellectual, and ritual. Koenig et al. (2012) defined religiosity as a set of beliefs and practices relating to the transcendent. An operational definition of religiosity proposed by Hood et al. (2018) stated religiosity is defined by the extent to which an individual prays, reads scriptures, attends religious services, and engages in behavioural restrictions concerning marriage and diet, prescribed by their religion. Likewise, religiosity as a concept is defined by Zullig et al. (2006) as an organised belief system with established rituals and practices, acquired in places of worship (p. 255). Extrinsic and intrinsic are two dimensions of religiosity identified by Allport and Ross (1967).

“Happiness” is used as an umbrella term for all that is good and is a subjective and multidimensional construct, consisting of cognitive and emotional components (Diener et al., 2003; Hills & Argyle, 2001; Veenhoven, 2011). Veenhoven (2010) interchangeably uses happiness with the quality of life or well-being. Happiness is defined by Veenhoven (2010) as the degree to which an individual evaluates one’s life as a whole positively. Happiness has also been referred to as life satisfaction, or an undifferentiated state of positive affect (e.g., Argyle, 1987) and effective balance between positive and negative affects (Bradburn, 1969). Happiness is a positive emotion that impacts psychological, cognitive, and physical mechanisms (Ziapour et al., 2018). Subjective well-being is considered the psychological term for what is generally referred to as happiness (Diener, 1998). Three possible components of subjective well-being or happiness proposed include satisfaction, positive emotions, and the absence of negative emotions (Argyle et al., 1995). Diener et al. (2002) considered subjective well-being as consisting of low levels of negative mood, high life satisfaction, and experiencing pleasant emotions and the balance of both emotions, the positive and negative, is considered to be a significant determinant of happiness or subjective well-being. The theory of happiness proposed by Seligman (2002) had three components. They were engagement, positive emotion and pleasure, and meaning.

On average, religious individuals are happier and more satisfied with life than nonreligious individuals (Stavrova et al., 2013). Shaver et al. (1980) found a curvilinear relationship between religiosity and happiness from a sample of 2500 women in America. A significant and positive relationship was reported by Ellison et al. (1989), between happiness and firm religious beliefs. Other studies show a significant positive relationship between religiosity and happiness, including McClure and Loden (1982), Zukerman et al. (1984), Bergin and colleagues (1987), and Robbins and Francis (1996). Ellison et al. (1989) found that greater personal happiness, higher levels of life satisfaction, and fewer negative psychosocial consequences of traumatic life events were reported by participants with strong religious faith. In a literature review conducted by Vishkin et al. (2014), they concluded that religion is a major contributor to happiness and emotion regulation. Likewise, Van Cappellen et al. (2014) found positive emotion as a mediator in the relation between religion, spirituality, and well-being. In an international literature review, Tay et al. (2014) concluded that religion was regarded as an important part of their lives by a majority of the people, in order to obtain happiness and peace. Most of these studies were conducted in Western countries, using different measures of religiosity, and happiness and the sample populations were mainly Christian. Abdel-Khalek (2014b) explained the connection between religiosity and well-being in a Muslim context in Religiosity and Spirituality Across Cultures.

Rizvi and Hossain (2016) reviewed several studies done on religiosity and well-being in different countries and religions. Of which included 35 Christianity, 31 Islam, four Judaism, three Hindu, and two Buddhism studies. All the studies on all the religions except Christianity were found to show a positive association between religiosity and well-being. There were inconsistencies found among the Christianity studies, where 12 studies showed non-significant results.

A systematic literature review was conducted by the authors to review quantitative studies among the Muslim population to identify the relationship between religiosity and happiness. It was intended to update the existing literature reviews on the relationship between religiosity and happiness and report quality studies conducted on the topic with Muslim samples. With regards to the possible finding of the studies, it is expected that all studies would show a significant positive relationship between happiness and religiosity, supporting previous literature reviews with Muslim samples (e.g., Abdel-Khalek, 2017, 2018, 2019; Rizvi & Hossain, 2016). Evidence also shows Islamic practices foster subjective well-being, including ablution (Abou El Azayem & Hedayat-Diba, 1994) and prayer (Husain, 1998; Loewenthal & Cinnirella, 1999). Quraishi (1984) stated that Islam is not only a religion; it is also a way of life. This review will shed light on the importance of religion in people’s well-being and the vital role religiosity plays in people’s happiness. It will also highlight the different measures used to measure religiosity and happiness.

Methods

In July 2020, Google Scholar, databases such as EbscoHost, Taylor and Francis Online, and Science Direct, were searched using the keywords “religiosity,” “religion,” “religiousness”, “happiness”, “life satisfaction”, “well-being”, “Islam”, and “Muslims”. Articles with titles or abstracts, including the three main keywords, were searched for full-text articles and downloaded. Upon reviewing reference lists of articles downloaded, frequency of authors, and journals the studies were published in, those journals, articles from reference list, and authors were further examined to search for studies in the area. The aim was to search for articles that explored the relationship between religiosity and happiness among the Muslim population. The search was conducted by the first author.

Figure 1 shows a PRISMA flow chart (Moher et al., 2009), illustrating the process of searching, screening, selecting, and the inclusion and exclusion criteria to finalise the total number of studies. Inclusion criteria were studies published between the years 2000 and 2020 on the Muslim population, where religiosity and happiness were variables tested, and which scored above .55 on quality assessment, and were published in the English language. Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers from a Variety of Fields (Kmet et al., 2004) were used to assess the quality of the selected papers. Two reviewers (the first two authors) scored the papers, and any differences were resolved by discussion and mutual agreement.

Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart of the systematic literature review studies.

Initially, 59 papers were identified and downloaded, of which seven were excluded as they did not measure happiness, subjective well-being, and religiosity. The remaining 52 articles were access for quality and three were excluded as they did not reach the cut-off score of .55. Therefore, a total of 49 papers remaining were included in the review. All of the 49 papers are quantitative in nature.

Analysis

A descriptive evaluation of each study is presented in Tables 1 and 2. It includes the country where the research was conducted, participants’ details, the measures used, and the findings. The 49 studies that fit to the inclusion criteria were reviewed, analysed, and categorised with respect to recurrent trends and themes. These categories were sample population and participants, measures used, and other parameters measured. Other literature supporting the themes are is also discussed.

Table 1. Shows a summary of the research conducted only with Muslim populations.

Studies with Muslim sample only
Author/year	Country/Participants	Measures	Finding/conclusion
Abdel-Khalek (2006a)	Kuwait, 2210 (1056 male and 1154 female)	1.Four rating scales assess happiness, physical health mental health, and religiosity	Correlation between self-ratings of happiness, physical health, mental health, and religiosity. Males had higher mean score on happiness and mental health. Females had higher religiosity mean score.
Abdel-Khalek (2007)	Kuwait, 6339 (3181 male and 3158 female)	Four separate self-rating-scales were used to assess religiosity, happiness, mental health, and physical health Kuwait University Anxiety Scale (KUAS) Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D) Arabic	Males had higher scores on happiness, mental health, and physical health. Females had higher mean scores on religiosity, anxiety, and depression. Positive correlation between religiosity, happiness, mental health, and physical health, and negative between these four rating scales and anxiety and depression.
Abdel-Khalek (2009)	Saudi Arabia, 7211 (2159 male and 5052 female)	Five self-rating scales assess religiosity, happiness, satisfaction, mental health, physical health Multidimensional Child and Adolescent Depression Scale (MCADS)	Correlations are significant between religiosity and both SWB ratings (positive) and depression (negative).
Abdel-Khalek (2010a)	Kuwait, 224 (106 male and 118 female)	Arabic version World Health Organization Quality of Life-Brief (WHOQOL-Brief) Scale Questions on physical health, mental health, happiness, satisfaction, religiosity, and religious belief	Happiness/Religiosity (r = .219, p < .01). Satisfaction with life/Religiosity (r = .171, p < .05). Satisfaction/happiness (r = .814, p < .01).
Abdel-Khalek (2010b)	Kuwait, 487 (216 male and 271 female)	Six separate scales, assess religiosity, religious belief, physical health, mental health, happiness, and satisfaction Personality scales of neuroticism (N); (1) Factorial Arabic Neuroticism Scale (FANS), (2) The N subscale of the revised NEO	Religiosity is positively associated with SWB variables, physical health, mental health, happiness, and satisfaction with life, religiosity is negatively correlated with N.
Abdel-Khalek (2011a)	Kuwait, 499 (249 male and 250 female)	Six scales, assess religiosity, religious belief, physical health, mental health, happiness, and satisfaction with life Self-esteem Scale (SES) KUAS	Correlations are significant between religiosity and SWB rating scales, self-esteem (positive), and anxiety (negative).
Abdel-Khalek (2011b)	Egypt, 224 (101 male and 123 female)	1.Arabic versions Oxford Happiness Inventory (OHI) 2.Love of Life Scale (LLS) 3.Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) 4.Five scales assessed physical health, mental health, happiness, satisfaction, and religiosity	Correlations are significant and positive, including subjective well-being measures with religiosity. Correlations between measures of subjective well-being are higher than correlations between well-being and religiosity. Correlations with religiosity ranged from .16 (self-rating of physical health) to .48 (self-rating of satisfaction).
Abdel-Khalek (2012a)	Egyptian, 577 (214 male and 363 female) Kuwaiti, 674 (332 male and 342 female)	Arabic Scale of Mental Health (ASMH) SES Five questions to assess religiosity, physical health, mental health, happiness, and satisfaction with life	Egyptian and Kuwaiti men obtained significantly higher mean scores. Kuwaiti men and women had significantly higher mean scores on all the scales than their Egyptian counterparts. All correlations are significant and positive. The main predictors of religiosity were self-esteem, happiness, satisfaction and mental health.
Abdel-Khalek (2012b)	Kuwait, 1420 (719 male and 701 female)	OHI SWLS LLS Self-rating scales to assess happiness, physical health, mental health, and religiosity	Males had higher mean scores on religiosity, happiness and satisfaction with life. Correlations between the SWB variables are significant and positive as well as the SWB-religiosity associations.
Abdel-Khalek (2013a)	Qatar, 372 (194 male and 178 female)	Five questions to assess religiosity, mental health, physical health, happiness, and satisfaction with life	Significant and positive correlations between religiosity, health, and happiness. Main predictors of religiosity were satisfaction with life and happiness among boys, respectively.
Abdel-Khalek (2013b)	Qatar, 246 (113 male and 133 female)	OHI SWLS LLS Five questions to assess happiness, satisfaction with life, mental health, physical health, and religiosity	All the correlations between SWB, health, and religiosity are significant and positive.
Abdel-Khalek (2014a)	Lebanon, 239 (111 male and 128 female)	OHI SWLS LOLS Five questions to assess happiness, satisfaction with life, mental health, physical health, and religiosity	Boys: OHI/Religiosity (r = .227, p < .05). OHI/Satisfaction (r = .561, p < .001). Girls: OHI/Religiosity (r = .355, p < .001). OHI/Satisfaction (r = .307, p < .001).
Abdel-Khalek and Eid (2011)	Kuwaiti, 1937 (673 male and 1264 female) Palestine, 1009 (452 male and 557 female)	Five questions to assess religiosity, happiness, satisfaction, mental health, and physical health MCADS	Significant correlations of religiosity with the SWB variables, happiness, satisfaction with life, physical health, and mental health (positive), and depression (negative).
Abdel-Khalek et al. (2020)	Egypt, Study 1: 250 (125 male and 125 female). Study 2: 490 (243 male and 247 female)	Study 1: Five questions, to assess physical health, mental health, happiness, and SWL Study 2: Four of the five self-rating scales used in Study 1 were used. (The rating of mental health was omitted.) ASMH	In study 1, boys obtained higher mean scores than girls did, on religiosity, mental health, physical health, and satisfaction with life. In study 2, boys obtained higher mean scores on the ASMH and physical health and happiness. All the Pearson correlations between religiosity, well-being, and health significant and positive in both studies.
Abdel-Khalek and Lester (2009)	Kuwait, 162 (22 male and 129 female)	1.Intrinsic Religious Motivation Scale 2.Three separate single-item self-rating measures assessing religiosity, strength of religious belief, and happiness	Pearson correlations between happiness and Intrinsic Religious Motivation, religiosity, and strength of religious faith were .44, .30, and .28 (p < .01), respectively.
Abdel-Khalek and Lester (2010a)	Kuwait, 234 (106 male and 128 female)	Social and personal data sheet Four questions to assess happiness, physical health, mental health, and religiosity OHI SWLS Arabic Scale of Optimism and Pessimism (ASOP) Hope Scale SES Affect Balance Scale	Happiness and satisfaction with life are strongly associated variables with similar correlates. OHI/religiosity (r = .244, p < .01). SWLS/Religiosity (r = .194, p < .01).
Abdel-Khalek and Lester (2017)	Kuwait, 702 (311 male and 391 female)	Self-rating scales of religiosity and happiness Arabic Scale of Self-efficacy ASMH	Men had higher scores for self-efficacy and mental health. No significant sex-related differences in religiosity and happiness. Males – Religiosity/happiness (r = .202, p < .01). Religiosity/mental health (r = .190, p < .01). Women – Religiosity/happiness (r = .141, p < .01), religiosity/mental health (r = .215, p < .01).
Abdel-Khalek and Naceur (2007)	Algeria, 244 (109 male and 135 female)	Five questions assess religiosity, physical health, mental health, happiness, and satisfaction with life ASOP KUAS	Religiosity and satisfaction with life are higher in females. Religiosity is correlated with mental health in males. Religiosity correlated with, happiness, satisfaction with life, physical and mental health, and optimism in females.
Abdel-Khalek and Tekke (2019)	Malaysia, 238 (105 male and 133 female)	1.Arabic Scale of Intrinsic Religiosity (ASIR) 2.SES 3.Arabic Scale of Happiness (ASH) 4.ASMH 5.LLS 6.Four questions assess physical health, mental health, happiness, and satisfaction with life	Correlation – Men (N = 105) – Religiosity and happiness scale (r = .085), self-rating happiness (r = .281), satisfaction (r = .216). Women (N = 133) – Religiosity and happiness (r = .278), self-rating happiness (r  = .260), and satisfaction (r  = .262).
Achour et al. (2014)	Malaysia, 315 female	1.Family and job satisfaction measured using three items developed by Hackman and Oldham (1975) 2.SWLS 3.An 11-item self-report measure of “Strength of Religious Faith”	Correlation between personal well-being and religiosity. Well-being is correlated with beliefs and worship and prayer.
Achour et al. (2017)	Malaysia, 230 (117 male and 113 female)	1.35- item questionnaire measures subjective happiness and religious commitment 2.15-item Subjective Happiness Scale 3.20-item for religious commitment	Correlation between religious commitment and subjective happiness.
Ashkanani (2009)	Kuwait, 266 (55.7% males and 44.3% female)	1.Religiosity – used 15 items. 2.Psychological well-being: Ryff 84 item scale	Strong positive correlation between religiosity and well-being (r = .275; p < .01).
Baroun (2006)	Kuwait, 941 (408 male and 533 female)	1.The Intrinsic Religious Motivation Scale 2.Arabic version of the KUAS 3.Six self-rating scales were used, e.g., What is your level of religiosity, how is your mental health, and do you feel happy in general?	Correlation- intrinsic religiosity and mental health (r = .26, p = .001), mental health (r = .12), satisfaction (.26). MH and happiness (r = .61).
Bayani (2014)	Iran, 358 (165 male and 193 female)	1.OHI 2.Depression-Happiness Scale 3.Persian version of Religious Orientation Scale	Religious Orientation Scale correlated with OHI (r = .34, p < .001), as was Religious Orientation Scale and the Depression-Happiness Scale (r = .29, p < .001). Positive correlation between OHI and Depression-Happiness Scale (r = .80, p < .001).
Fatima et al. (2018)	Pakistan, 331 (68% male and 32% female)	1.Psychological Measure of Islamic Religiousness 2.Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) 3.General Self-Efficacy Scale 4.Psychological Well-Being Scale	Positive associations between indices of religiosity (religious coping and practices) and PWB outcomes.
Francis et al. (2016)	Turkey, 348 (122 male and 226 female)	1.OHI 2.Religious Attitude Scale (Islam) 3.short-form Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised	Association between happiness and religiosity (r = .12, p < .05) scores of attitudes towards Islam provide a predictor of happiness, religious people are happier people (ß = .17, p < .001).
Gulamhussein and Eaton (2015)	USA, 50 female	Self-reported religiosity assessed Hijab frequency measured by “How frequently do you wear an Islamic headscarf?” Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale Beck Anxiety Inventory CES-D	Higher religiosity is linked with lower anxious and depressive symptoms.
Jesarati et al. (2013)	Iran, 370 (192 male and 178 female)	Islamic Involvement Questionnaire modified from Religiosity Orientation Scale Sahin–Francis Scale of Attitudes toward Islam based on Islamic principles Oxford Happiness Questionnaire (OV/Q)	Significant positive relationship between Happiness and Religious attitude (r = .33).
Momtaz et al. (2011)	Malaysia, 722 female	1.WHO-5 Well-being Index 2.Revised Intrinsic Extrinsic Religiosity Scale 3.Lubben Social Network Scale (LSNS-6)	Correlation indicated psychological well-being positively associated with religiosity (r = .27, p < .01) and negatively correlated with social isolation (r = .22, p < .01).
Parniyan et al. (2016)	Iran, 273 (85 male and 188 female)	The World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire Religious Attitude Scale	Correlation between religious attitude and quality of life (r = .25, p = .001). Religious attitude and mental health (r = .04, p < .05).
Sahraian et al. (2013)	Iran, 271 (164 male and 107 female)	1.Farsi version of OHI2.Religious Attitude Questionnaire	Religious belief linked to level of happiness (r = .25, p = .01). Individuals with a more religious attitude experience more happiness.
Saleem et al. (2020)	Pakistan, 200 (100 male and 100 female)	1.Mental Health Inventory-38 2.Religiosity Measure Scale tapping belief salience, religious activities, frequency of prayer offering, and religious offering preference.	Participation in religious activities, belief salience, religious offering preference and prayer offering positively predicts mental health among university students.
Stuart and Ward (2018)	New Zealand, 155 (47 male and 108 female)	General Perceived Discrimination Scale Cultural Readjustment Rating Scale Social Identity Scale Islamic Practice Scale Life Satisfaction Scale Self-rating Depression Scale (ZSDS)	Well-being and religious identity (r = .20 p < .05) Well-being and Religious Practice (r = .36 p < .001). Religious practices positively predict well-being (ß = .31, p = .001), effect of religious identity was non-significant.
Tekke et al. (2018)	Malaysia, 189 (41 male and 148 female)	OHI Sahin-Francis Scale of Attitude towards Islam The shortened Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised	Association between happiness and religiosity (r  = .22, p < .01). Religious people are happier people (ß = .19, p < .01).
Tiliouine and Belgoumidi (2009)	Algeria, 495 (165 male and 330 female)	Comprehensive Measure of Islamic Religiosity (CMIR) Personal Well-being Index (PWI) SWLS Short version of Presence of Meaning in Life (PML)	High religious commitment leads to higher levels of satisfaction (F = 14.79, p < .001) with life and presence of meaning in lives (F = 5.78, p < .05).
Tiliouine et al. (2009)	Algeria, 2909 (1446 male and 1463 female)	Islamic Religiosity Scale (IRS) PWI Respondents rated some additional items on a scale from 0 to 10	Strong positive relationship with Subjective Well-Being (SWB) and religiosity but no link between SWL (measured through PWI) and religiosity was established.

Table 2. Shows a summary of the research conducted with Muslim samples and other groups.

Studies with Muslim sample and others
Author/year	Country/Participants	Measures	Finding/conclusion
Abdel-Khalek (2015)	Lebanon, 476 (215 male and 261 female)	Adapted OHI SWLS LLS Five questions to assess happiness, satisfaction with life, mental health, physical health, and religiosity	Men were higher on happiness and mental health. Women were higher on religiosity. Most correlations were positive except the self-rating scales of physical health and religiosity among men.
Abdel-Khalek and Lester (2007)	Kuwaiti, 460 (103 male and 357 female) USA, 274 (61 male and 212 female)	1.Three separate self-rating scales to assess religiosity, mental health, and physical health. 2.ASOP 3.KUAS 4.Arabic Scale of Obsession-Compulsion Death Obsession Scale (DOS) 5.Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire (SIQ) 6.Ego-Grasping Scale to Measure Adherence to a Taoist Orientation	Religiosity is associated with ratings of physical health, mental health, and optimism (both countries). Religious participants were healthier, more optimistic, and lower scores on psychopathology in both countries.
Abdel-Khalek and Lester (2010b)	Kuwaiti, 192 (47 male and 145 female) USA, 158 (45 male and 113 female)	OHQ LLS KUAS CES-D Six questions to assess happiness, satisfaction with life, mental health, physical health, religiosity, and religious belief	Kuwaiti students had higher scores on religiosity, religious belief, and depression than American students. Americans had higher scores on happiness and love of life. USA: OHQ/Religiosity (r = .205, p < .01). OHQ/satisfaction (r = .715, p < .01). Satisfaction/religiosity (r = .193, p < .05). Kuwait: OHQ/Religiosity (r = .258, p < .01). OHQ/satisfaction (r = .578, p < .01). Satisfaction/religiosity (r = .404, p < .01).
Abdel-Khalek and Lester (2013)	Kuwait, 154 (28 male and 126 female) USA, 154 (28 male and 126 female)	ASMH SES ASOP Hopelessness Scale (HS) Three questions to assess physical health, mental health, and religiosity	Kuwaiti students had higher scores on religiosity. Americans had higher scores on the ASMH and rating scales of mental health and physical health. Correlations between scales are statistically significant in the Kuwaiti sample, whereas 22 out of 28 correlations (78.6%) are significant in the American sample. Higher correlations between religiosity and other scales in the Kuwait sample.
Abdel-Khalek and Lester (2018)	Egyptian, 220 (105 male and 115 female) UK, 205 (98 male and 107 female)	Four questions to assess religiosity, happiness, satisfaction with life, and mental health	Egyptians had higher scores on religiosity, British higher SWB scores. Correlations between the self-rating scales are significnt and positive.
Abdel-Khalek and Singh (2019)	India, 370 (80 male and 290 female)	LLS ASH ASIR	Females obtained higher scores on LLS and religiosity. Correlations between scales are statistically significant and positive. Happiness and religiosity (males: r = .300, p < .01, females: r = .248, p < .01).
Abu Rahim (2013)	Malaysia, 124 (50 male and 74 female)	Four questions to assess happiness and religiosity	Life Satisfaction gives affects individual’s happiness compared to religiosity and frequent prayer.
Abu-Raiya and Agbaria (2016)	Israel-Palestine, 264 (71.8% male and 28.2% female)	General Religiosity Subscale Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) Adolescence Self-Control Scale Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL)	Religiousness is positively correlated with social support and self-control, and with subjective happiness and positive emotions.
Aghababei et al. (2016)	Iran, 474 (162 male and 312 female)	Persian version of The Religious Orientation Scale-Revised (ROS-R) Muslim Attitudes toward Religion Scale (MARS) Attitudes toward Science and Technology Scale (AST) Hope Scale Purpose in Life Test (PLT) SHS SWLS SES	Religious attitudes (MARS), religious orientations, and scientific attitudes (AST) positively correlated with happiness, life satisfaction, and self-esteem.
Devine et al. (2019)	Bangladesh, 1500 (male 92.9%)	Resource and Needs Questionnaire (RANQ) demographic and socio-economic profile of 1500 households in six sites (250 households each site). Second, core data analysis supplemented by qualitative data gathered 2008 till 2016	Religious identity determinant of happiness. Muslim household heads have higher levels of happiness than Hindus
Hashemi et al. (2020)	Australia, 382 (52.1% male and 47.9% female)	Multi-Religion Identity Measure (MRIM) MSPSS Brief Perceived Ethnic Discrimination Questionnaire–Community Version (PEDQ-CV) Psychological Well-Being (PWB-42) questionnaire	Religious identity direct effects and indirect effects on psychological well-being of ME migrants through social connectedness with ethnic community, perceived discrimination, and perceived social support.
Hossain and Rizvi (2017)	Oman, 335 (44.8% male and 55.2% female)	OHI Single-item scale of religiousness	Level of religiousness or religiosity had noticeable and positive significance on happiness (sig = .45).
Suhail and Chaudhry (2004)	Pakistan, 973 (477 male and 485 female, 11 N/A)	Extraversion/Introversion Scale (EIS) from Eysenck Personality Inventory Religiosity Scale (RS) SES Work satisfaction (WS) Marital satisfaction (MS) Social support (SS) Ladder Scale of General Well-Being (LSWB) Faces Scale	Correlation between Religiosity Scale and personal happiness is r = .12, p < .001 and correlation between Religiosity Scale and life satisfaction is r = .10, p < .01. Personal happiness & life satisfaction.

Results

A total of 49 studies were identified as eligible. The description of these studies can be seen in Tables 1 and 2. The majority of the studies were quantitative. Only one study employed mixed methods (Devine et al., 2019).

Sample population and participants

Thirty-six studies had used only Muslim samples (Table 1), and 13 studies had Muslim samples with another religious group or a different country (Table 2). The average number of participants used in the studies was 829.3. The lowest number of participants was 50 (Gulamhussein & Eaton, 2015), and the highest was 7211 (Abdel-Khalek, 2009). Except for the studies done by Momtaz et al. (2011), Achour et al. (2014), and Gulamhussein and Eaton (2015), all other studies had both male and female participants. Figure 2 shows the years and number of articles published in the respective years included in the review.

Figure 2. Bar graph showing happiness papers with Muslim populations.

Most of the studies (N = 39) had used a student sample population to collect data (e.g., Abdel Khalek 2007; Fatima et al., 2018). One study (Stuart & Ward, 2018) used a Muslim immigrant youth sample in New Zealand, another individuals and relatives of those who were in a car accident (Ashkanani, 2009). Another used participants of 60 years or older (Momtaz et al., 2011) and one used adolescents (Baroun, 2006). Tables 1 and 2 also show the papers included in the review with the sample size and the countries in which the studies were conducted. Sixteen studies had samples from Kuwait and four studies used samples from the USA of which three are comparison studies with Kuwait (Abdel-Khalek & Lester, 2007, 2010b, 2013). Although the religious practices may have individual differences, Thorson et al. (1997) reported religious motivation to be high in Kuwait, compared with the USA. Using data from the World Database of Happiness, Mookerjee and Baron (2005) confirmed that happiness levels across different countries are greatly impacted by religion and culture.

Measures used

Both religiosity and happiness are multidimensional. Therefore, how they are operationalised and conceptualised in studies differs. Religiosity in some studies is measured by religious commitment (Achour et al., 2017), religious orientation (Aghababei et al., 2016; Bayani, 2014), religious attitude (Francis et al., 2016; Jesarati et al., 2013; Tekke et al., 2018) religious practices (Stuart & Ward, 2018), religious identity (Hashemi et al., 2020; Stuart & Ward, 2018), while others have used the strength of religious faith (Achour et al., 2014) and affiliation (Suhail & Chaudhry, 2004), intrinsic religious motivation (Abdel-Khalek & Lester, 2009; Abdel-Khalek & Singh, 2019; Abdel-Khalek & Tekke, 2019; Baroun, 2006), frequency of prayer (Abu Rahim, 2013; Saleem et al., 2020), individual’s concern and involvement with spiritual issues (Abu-Raiya & Agbaria, 2016), and religious belief, practices, and the use of positive religious coping strategies (Fatima et al., 2018)

Likewise, happiness is measured through satisfaction with life (Abdel-Khalek, 2011b, 2012b, 2013b; Abu Rahim, 2013; Suhail & Chaudhry, 2004), subjective happiness and positive and negative emotions (Abu-Raiya & Agbaria, 2016), psychological well-being (Ashkanani, 2009; Fatima et al., 2018; Hashemi et al., 2020), anxiety (Abdel-Khalek, 2011a; Abdel-Khalek & Lester, 2010b), and depression (Bayani, 2014).

Several studies used the Oxford Happiness Inventory (OHI) (e.g., Abdel-Khalek, 2011b, Bayani, 2014), and two studies used the OHQ to measure happiness (Abdel-Khalek & Lester, 2010b; Jesarati et al., 2013). The OHI (Argyle et al., 1989) is one of the main scales used to measure happiness. All studies used self-report scales to measure additional variables including, religiosity, level of happiness, satisfaction with life, and mental health.

Several studies used single-item measures (e.g., Hossain & Rizvi, 2017; Saleem et al., 2020), to measure religiosity, happiness, life satisfaction, mental and physical health. When conducting large-scale surveys in communities, single-item measures are more economical and useful, with time limits. A single-item happiness scale was found to be viable in a cross-cultural comparison, as well as in a community survey and research project (Abdel-Khalek, 2006b). There are limitations to such scales. They cannot provide sufficient data to evaluate the internal consistency of the scale and have limited score ranges. They cannot cover the influence of social desirability and the complexity of the construct being measured (Gillings & Joseph, 1996), nor can factor analysis be applied to their items (Abdel-Khalek, 2006b). However, several studies (Wills, 2009; Zullig et al., 2006) have supported the merits of using single-item, self-rating scales. When there are a large number of scales and items, this type of measure could potentially be beneficial, as participants might not be willing to complete a lengthy questionnaire. A single-item, self-rating scale is based upon the assumption that the most relevant meaning that comes to mind will be assumed by participants, with regards to the subject of the question and answered accordingly (Wills, 2009). Cummins (1995) found that reliable and valid data could be yielded by using single-item, self-rated measures. More than 40 studies conducted with single-item self-rating scales showed the same results as multiple-item questionnaires (e.g., Abdel-Khalek, 2012a).

Other parameters measured

While examining the relationship between religiosity and happiness often age (Abu Rahim, 2013), gender (Ashkanani, 2009), income (Momtaz et al., 2011), education (Abu Rahim, 2013), marital status (Momtaz et al., 2011), life satisfaction (Aghababei et al., 2016), love of life (Abdel Khalek & Singh, 2019), personality (Francis et al., 2016), physical health (Abdel-Khalek & Tekke, 2019) depression (Stuart & Ward, 2018), meaning in life, purpose in life (Aghababei et al., 2016), self-esteem (Abdel-Khalek & Lester, 2013), optimism and pessimism (Abdel-Khalek & Naceur, 2007), and anxiety (Baroun, 2006) were measured at the same time.

Several studies reported social support, sense of meaning and purpose in life, healthier lifestyle, generativity, and individual coping mechanism, such as prayer and faith as individual difference factors which mediate the relationship between religiosity and subjective well-being (Compton, 2005; Diener et al., 2011; Donahue & Benson, 1995; Pargament, 1997; Pargament et al., 1998; Steger & Frazier, 2005). Van Cappellen et al. (2014) included hope, satisfaction with life, perceived meaning in life, sense of self-worth, and optimism as positive indicators of association between religiosity and value outcomes. Easterlin (1995, 2001) noted income was as an important factor in determining the level of happiness.

Discussion

The results of these studies show a positive correlation between happiness and religiosity. While the majority showed a significant relationship, others have shown weak yet positive relationships (Tables 1 and 2). None of the studies shows any cause and effect. Several meta-analyses have been conducted with studies exploring the association between religion, religiosity, happiness, subjective well-being, and mental health. For example, Abdel-Khalek (2019) examined 26 studies from 13 Arab countries. He found 20 of the 26 studies (77%) showed statistically significant correlations between religiosity and happiness. Bergin (1983) looked at 24 studies, with 30% showing no relationship, 47% a positive relationship, and 23% a negative relationship. Garssen et al. (2020) looked at 48 longitudinal studies and found a small but positive (r = .08) impact of religion and religiosity on mental health. Koenig and Larson (2001) had the largest number of studies (N = 850), in their meta-analysis. Studies included in Koenig et al. (2001) indicated 79% showed positive associations between religion and life satisfaction. Two hundred and twenty-four studies conducted between the years of 1990 and 2010 were included in Koenig et al.’s (2012) meta-analytic study and 78% showed a statistically significant relationship between religiosity and subjective well-being.

Some limitations of conducting research to explore the relationship between happiness, religiosity and life satisfaction, highlighted by the studies, include, despite having a large sample size, not having a representative sample, having a relatively small sample size and therefore concern over statistical power. Also, being underpowered with a smaller effect size, due to measurement complexity, they cannot be generalised. Additionally, a non-probability convenience sampling method being used and cross-sectional correlational studies, which cannot draw causal conclusions, as well as, gender invariance and limited age range. The use of self-report measures, which are not validated by any other form of assessment. Response bias due to self-report measures. Not having a “lie” scale. The use of measures designed and validated among English-speaking and Western countries, being used in other countries, where the main spoken language is not English. Limitations in the translations of such scales. The use of lengthy questionnaires, which could affect the response set. While participation in research is anonymous, responses may be affected for measures of religiosity, as religion is often not discussed openly or usually solicited. Additionally, there may be social desirability bias, irregular distribution amongst participating groups, and the use of only quantitative measures.

Nevertheless, particular strengths in the literature can also be found, such as the study by Suhail and Chaudhry (2004). This was the largest survey conducted, exploring well-being among Pakistani participants from different socio-economic statuses in Lahore. Random sampling was done by Jesarati et al. (2013), Parniyan et al. (2016), and Fatima et al. (2018). Abu-Raiya and Agbaria (2016) urged researchers to explore the role positive religiosity plays in people’s lives, as it is an important dimension of life. In the age of Islamophobia, findings from Stuart and Ward (2018), contributed to negotiating new sociocultural contexts, by providing more in-depth comprehension of the dynamic processes involved. Results found by Tekke et al. (2018), are relevant in the development of empirical theology in the Islamic context.

Several implications of studying happiness and religiosity among the Muslim population have been highlighted by the studies. Some of these include the presentation of alternative measures of religiosity, contributing to fill the gap in measurement (Tiliouine & Belgoumidi, 2009). Taking religiosity into account in general mental well-being programs, as it predicts happiness (Sahraian et al., 2013), and the use of religious techniques to help improve the field of mental well-being (Hossain & Rizvi, 2017).

Future research needs to be conducted with diverse samples and use probability sampling from the general population, instead of student samples. It needs the use of Muslim samples from other countries, more significant sample numbers, different cultures as well as comparison across different religions and different age groups, different socio-economic statuses, and mediating psychosocial factors in the religiosity and subjective well-being link. It needs to explain how religiosity is experienced over the life span, qualitative designs, cross-sectional designs, and longitudinal studies. It needs the use of different scales for measurement and different measures to validate the results, physiological and behavioural measures based in laboratories, the use of more in-depth conceptual analysis, and the environmental influences on the mental health of Muslim populations.

Conclusions

To conclude, this systematic literature review has collated and explored two decades of research investigating religiosity and happiness within the global Muslim population. It is evident that overall, the current research is predominantly focused on Muslim students living in countries in which the prevailing faith is Islam. This literature review has found significant evidence to support a positive correlation between religiosity and subjective well-being. Future research should focus on Muslims living in countries, where they are a minority group as well as Muslims of different socio-economic backgrounds. This literature review has presented empirical evidence suggesting religion is an important dimension of life and therefore through understanding the role religion plays in well-being in countries where Muslims are in a minority, it could help to shape psychological support tools and interventions to better fit the needs of the resident Muslim population. This is especially important with the increasing focus on raising mental health awareness and the growing number of people accessing psychological support. Secondly, the search, screening, scoring, and analysis of this review were conducted solely by two of the authors and so bias in scoring and interpretation of the findings, cannot be ruled out. This review highlights the positive role religiosity can play in people’s lives and its associations with aspects of positive psychology, therefore, posing important implications for the holistic health and well-being of Muslims globally.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.