Etymology and Typologies of Religion - A Study

(Cite: Hamdani, Mufti Shah Rafi Uddin & Khan, Dr. (Mufti) Imran. (2025, December 26). Etymology and Typologies of Religion - A Study. Encyclopedia of Muhammad .)

Abstract

This study explores the etymology, typologies, and conceptual boundaries of religion, with particular attention to the contested classification of atheism. The analysis considers classical and modern definitions—from Cicero and Augustine to Durkheim and John Hick—highlighting religion as devotion to the divine, a communal system of the sacred, or humanity’s ultimate concern. Distinctions are drawn between Western notions of religion and the Islamic conception of al-Din, which denotes a divinely revealed, comprehensive way of life. Typological frameworks are applied to classify religions into theistic and non-theistic traditions, while also accounting for quasi-religious and pseudo-religious systems. A central focus is the status of atheism which lacks the usual features of religion—such as ritual, the sacred, or transcendence—but it often takes on quasi-religious forms, with communities, shared ethics, and ritual-like practices.

Historically, atheism is shown to be reactionary, defining itself in opposition to theism and operating as a counter-religious worldview within the secular ‘immanent frame.’ The paper concludes that while atheism cannot be considered a religion in the strict sense, it is best understood as a counter-religion with occasional quasi-religious expressions, thereby expanding the discourse on the boundaries of religion.

Religion: Etymology and Definition

Religion, derived from the Latin word ‘religio’, ¹ refers to ‘conscientiousness, sense of right, moral obligation, or duty’. ² Cicero states that religion is derived from ‘relegare’ which refers to ‘retrace’ or ‘reread’, and extended the meaning to rituals, and beliefs which were connected to God. ³ Augustine linked ‘religio’ with worship, doctrine, morality and relationship with God. ⁴ Various scholars have differing opinions on the definition of religion, however, it is agreed that all religions, whether perfect or imperfect, need to be respected. ⁵

In the biblical context, religion is not primarily a ritual system but a life of devotion to God expressed through moral purity, compassion, and justice. The Old Testament contains no direct equivalent to the English term ‘religion’. Instead, it emphasizes concepts like ’emunah ⁶ (faithfulness), brit ⁷ (covenant) and yirat Hashem ⁸ (fear of the Lord). In the New Testament, the concept of religion is expressed primarily through the Greek terms threskeia ⁹ (outward religious observance or ceremonial worship) and eusebeia ¹⁰ (godliness or piety). While threskeia focuses on religious practice, eusebeia emphasizes the inner life of devotion and reverence toward God that shapes ethical conduct. Together, these terms reveal that in the New Testament, religion is understood not merely as external ritual but as a life of sincere devotion, moral integrity, and compassionate action rooted in relationship with God.

Religion is generally understood to mean the recognition of the existence of a supernatural ruling power, the creator and controller of the universe, who has given man a spiritual nature which continues to exist after the death of the body, and of man’s duty to be obedient to that power. ¹¹ However, scholars like Émile Durkheim argue that religion does not necessarily require belief in a God or supernatural being. In his view, religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices centered on what a community regards as sacred—which can include moral ideals, symbols, or collective values. ¹² This definition shifts the focus from the divine to the social and cultural functions of religion, allowing even non-theistic systems to be considered religious.

So, one way of defining religion is to see it as humanity’s awareness of, and response to, something beyond the visible world—a higher power (Creator) or powers believed to offer rescue from suffering, inspire spirituality and ethics, and give life meaning that extends even beyond death. Another way is to focus more on the inner experience: the deep feelings of ultimate concern, the capacity for selfless devotion, and the commitment to values or ideals that guide our lives. This second perspective highlights that religion is not only about belief in the transcendent but also about the profound dedication people bring to their causes. In this sense, even secular worldviews, such as communism, Marxism or any other ism, can be understood as carrying a religious quality, since they command devotion and provide overarching frameworks of meaning. ¹³ Paul Tillich, however, more carefully described such movements as ‘quasi-religions’, and at times ‘pseudo-religions’—acknowledging their religious-like qualities without equating them with religion in the full sense. ¹⁴

John Hick has developed a perspective on the history of religions that emphasizes ‘pluralism’ ¹⁵ rather than ‘relativism.’ ¹⁶ He argues for what he calls a Copernican revolution in the theology of religion, urging Christianity to move away from Christocentrism ¹⁷ and instead recognize itself as one among many channels through which humanity encounters the divine. According to Hick, all world religions, despite their surface-level differences, represent authentic points of contact with a spiritual ultimate—variously described as ‘God,’ ‘the Eternal One,’ ‘Ultimate Reality,’ ‘the Transcendent,’ or ‘the Real.’ The progression of his thought has led him to increasingly prefer the more neutral and inclusive term ‘the Real’ over the theistic term ‘God,’ allowing his framework to encompass both theistic and non-theistic religions within a broader universe of faiths. ¹⁸

John Hick’s pluralistic hypothesis is appealing because it attempts to reconcile the diversity of world religions under a single vision of ‘the Real,’ presenting each as a culturally shaped but equally valid path toward salvation. However, as Salamon points out, Hick’s framework struggles with the problem of conflicting truth-claims. While Hick suggests these contradictions are superficial or mythological, this move weakens the realist basis of his position. If religious claims are interpreted mythologically, their propositional truth is undermined, leaving Hick in a tension between wanting to affirm the independent reality of the Real while reducing specific religious doctrines to symbolic expressions. Moreover, Hick’s assumption that all religions share the same soteriological ¹⁹ goal—transforming human existence from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness—is highly contestable. Thus, while his pluralism offers an inclusive vision, it risks both inconsistency and a detachment from the lived realities of the faiths it seeks to harmonize. ²⁰ This shows that many forms of religions exist, such as theistic, non-theistic, quasi and even pseudo religions. However, ‘The Religion’ or ‘Al-Din’ is one and distinct, distinguished from others via its answer to the Ultimate questions, comprehensive worldview and guidance in every aspect of life.

Religions & Al-Din

In classical Arabic, Al-Din (الدِّين) denotes obedience, submission, compliance, and adherence to a set of rules or principles. It may also mean recompense or judgment, as in the phrase يوم الدين (Day of Recompense). ²¹ It is also referred to as a divine system that calls those of intellect to accept what has been brought by the Holy Prophet ²² as it is the perfected and final form of religion ²³ which was revealed by Allah Almighty upon the Prophets before him. In contemporary Islamic discourse, Al-Din is often translated as ‘religion’, yet its meaning in the Holy Quran and Sunnah is far broader than the common English usage of that term. While religion in English generally denotes a set of beliefs and rituals, al-Din in Islam signifies the complete divinely revealed way of life — encompassing creed (aqidah, عقیدہ), acts of worship (ibadat, عبادت), moral conduct (akhlaq, اخلاق), legal and social systems (shariah, شریعت), and the ultimate accountability before Allah on the Day of Judgment (yawm al-din, یوم الدین). Thus, in the Islamic sense, al-Din integrates faith, law, and ethics into a unified system of submission to Allah, transcending the narrower and less comprehensive Western concept of religion.

Typology of Religion

Broadly, religions are categorized in to two types: Theistic and Non-Theistic. Theistic religions affirm one God or multiple gods (e.g., Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, many forms of Hinduism, and Shinto). Non-theistic religions either deny a creator-God or treat ultimate reality as non-personal (e.g., Buddhism, Jainism, philosophical Daoism, Confucianism, and certain Hindu schools such as Saṅkhya and Mimaṃsa). Because ‘atheism’ is a non-theistic stance rather than an organized religion, its placement is discussed carefully and sourced to standard reference works and philosophical literature.

Theistic Religions

Theistic religions are traditions in which the existence of a transcendent divine being—God—is central to both belief and practice. Theism entails affirming God as the ultimate source of existence, moral order, and salvation. Theism provides a foundation for human dignity and ethical responsibility by grounding them in divine reality rather than in human constructs. ²⁴ Thus, theistic religions are characterized by a shared conviction that God is both the creator and sustainer of the world, and the ultimate object of worship.

In this context, a theist is someone who believes in the existence of God or gods. However, even within theism, there are significant divisions. For instance, ‘process theists’ hold that God can change without compromising His perfection, while open theists—sometimes referred to as new theists—reject certain traditional views of divine providence, particularly regarding God’s control over free will actions, along with other theological disagreements. ²⁵

Non-Theistic Religions

In contrast, non-theistic religions do not make belief in a personal God central to their worldview. Examples include Buddhism and certain schools of Hindu philosophy, where the focus lies not on God as a transcendent creator but on ultimate realities such as Nirvana, Dharma, or Brahman understood impersonally. He argues that while these religions share ethical and spiritual aims with theistic traditions, their metaphysical frameworks differ by rejecting or minimizing the concept of a divine personal being. For instance, Buddhism’s soteriology revolves around liberation from suffering through enlightenment, not reconciliation with a creator God. Hebblethwaite stresses that acknowledging these non-theistic perspectives is crucial for interreligious understanding, but he critiques them for lacking the personal dimension of relationship with the divine that theism uniquely provides. ²⁶ Thus, both theistic and non-theistic religions seek to address the ultimate questions of human existence, morality, and destiny, yet their approaches are fundamentally different. While non-theistic traditions such as Buddhism and certain Hindu schools emphasize impersonal ultimate realities and methods of self-transcendence, theistic religions root their vision of salvation in relationship with a personal God who reveals, sustains, and redeems.

Atheism & Religion

The classification of atheism has been a subject of scholarly debate, with discussions centering on whether it constitutes a religion, a counter-religion, or merely a philosophical position. Evidence suggests that atheism is not a religion in the substantive sense but may function sociologically as a quasi-religion or as a reaction against theism.

Atheism and Religion: Conceptual Boundaries

Classical theories of religion, such as Durkheim’s definition of religion as ‘a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things’ ²⁷ would exclude atheism, which rejects the sacred. However, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, while defining religion, citing traditions such as Buddhism and Confucianism and notes that religion need not necessarily entail belief in a deity. ²⁸ This complicates the exclusion of atheism. Furthermore, Bullivant and Ruse observe that organized atheist communities sometimes replicate religious forms—through gatherings, ethics, and secular ‘rituals’—which function sociologically like religions. ²⁹

Atheism a Reactionary Religion

Historically, atheism emerged in opposition to dominant theistic traditions. Martin stresses that atheism developed as a rejection of theistic metaphysical claims. ³⁰ Similarly, Charles Taylor frames atheism within the ‘immanent frame’ ³¹ of secular modernity, where transcendence is actively denied. ³² Fraser even refers to atheism as “parasitic,” meaning its self-definition depends on what it rejects. ³³ Thus, atheism functions less as an independent religion and more as a reactionary worldview, formed in dialectic with theism.

Atheism cannot be classified as a religion in the substantive sense, given its absence of ritual, the sacred, and transcendence. However, sociologically it may operate as if it were religious, particularly in organized atheist or humanist movements. More accurately, atheism is a reactionary stance—its meaning shaped by opposition to theism. It is best understood as a counter-religious worldview with occasional quasi-religious features.

• ¹  Wilfred Cantwell Smith (1978), The Meaning and End of Religion, SPCK, London, U.K., Pg. 19.
• ²  Lewis Charlton (1891), An Elementary Latin Dictionary, Harper & Brothers, New York, USA, Pg. 716.
• ³  Cicero (1967), De Natura Deorum Academia (Translated by H. Rackham), Harvard University Press, London, U.K., Pg. 193.
• ⁴  Saint Augustine (2004), Letters 156–210 (Epistulae) (Translated by Roland Teske, Ed. Boniface Ramsey), New City Press, New York, USA, Part-II, Vol. 3, Pg. 20-22.
• ⁵  F. Max Muller (1873), Introduction to the Science of Religion, Longman’s, Green & Co, London, U.K., Pg. 6.
• ⁶  The Bible, Habakkuk 2: 4 (Orthodox Jewish Bible)
• ⁷  The Bible, Exodus 19: 5 (Orthodox Jewish Bible)
• ⁸  The Bible, Proverbs 1: 7 (Orthodox Jewish Bible)
• ⁹  The Bible, Acts 26: 5 (Greek Interlinear Bible)
• ¹⁰  The Bible, 1 Timothy 4: 8 (Greek Interlinear Bible)
• ¹¹  Maulana Wahiduddin Khan (2016), Religion and Science (Translated by Farida Khanam), Goodword Books, Chennai, India, Pg. 46.
• ¹²  Emile Durkheim (1995), The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (Translated by Karen E. Fields), The Free Press, New York, USA, Pg. 27-33.
• ¹³  Brian Hebblethwaite (1989), The Ocean of Truth, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., Pg. 116.
• ¹⁴  Paul Tillich (1969), Christianity and the Encounter of World Religions, Columbia University Press, New York, USA, Pg. 5.
• ¹⁵  Pluralism is the view that multiple religions, worldviews, or value systems can coexist, each offering valid insights into truth or reality. In religious terms, it holds that no single tradition has a monopoly on salvation or ultimate truth, and different paths may be equally legitimate.
• ¹⁶  Relativism is the belief that truth, morality, or values are not absolute but depend on perspective, culture, or individual standpoint. In this view, what is considered right, wrong, or true can vary from one society or person to another, with no universal standard binding on all.
• ¹⁷  Christocentrism is the theological view that places Jesus Christ at the center of faith, doctrine, and practice. It interprets God, salvation, and human purpose primarily through the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, making him the decisive focus of religious belief and devotion.
• ¹⁸  John Hick (2004), An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, USA, Pg. 233-236.
• ¹⁹  Soteriological means relating to salvation or ultimate deliverance. It refers to how different religions or philosophies explain the way humans can be saved, liberated, or attain ultimate fulfillment—whether eternal life in Christianity, najat (نجات) in Islam, or liberation (moksha/nirvana) in Hinduism and Buddhism.
• ²⁰  Janusz Salamon (2003), John Hick's Philosophy of Religious Pluralism - A Critical Examination, Forum Philosophicum, Krakow, Poland, Vol. 8, Pg. 167-182.
• ²¹  Abu Al-Fadl Muhammad ibn Mukarram ibn Manzoor Al-Afriqi (1414 A.H.), Lisan Al-Arab, Dar Sadir, Beirut, Lebanon, Vol. 13, Pg. 169.
• ²²  Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Ali Al-Shareef Al-Jurjani (1983), Kitab Al-T’areefat, Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyah, Beirut, Lebanon, Pg. 105.
• ²³  Holy Quran, Al-Maidah (The Table Spread) 5: 3
• ²⁴  Brian Hebblethwaite (1989), The Ocean of Truth, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., Pg. 30.
• ²⁵  Joseph W. Koterski & Graham Oppy (2019), Theism and Atheism: Opposing Arguments in Philosophy, Gale, New York, USA, Pg. 1-2.
• ²⁶  Brian Hebblethwaite (1989), The Ocean of Truth, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., Pg. 32-33.
• ²⁷  Emile Durkheim (1995), The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (Translated by Karen E. Fields), The Free Press, New York, USA, Pg. 44.
• ²⁸  Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Online): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-religion/ Retrieved: 18-08-2025
• ²⁹  Stephen Bullivant & Michael Ruse (2013), Atheism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K., Pg. 26-30.
• ³⁰  Michael Martin (2007), The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., Pg. 29.
• ³¹  The immanent frame is a cultural mindset in modern secular societies where people understand the world mainly in natural, human-centered, and this-worldly terms, without reference to God, transcendence, or the supernatural. It does not force people to be atheists; rather, it provides a shared structure where both belief and unbelief are possible, but the default way of explaining reality is within natural, immanent limits.
• ³²  Charles Taylor (2007), A Secular Age, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, London, U.K., Pg. 543.
• ³³  Liam Jerrold Fraser (2018), Atheism, Fundamentalism and the Protestant Reformation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., Pg. 7.