Muslims make up a minority in South Africa, constituting less than 5% of the population (Statistics South Africa, 2025). Islam in South Africa has a rich history of displacement and resistance, which has shaped the cultural identity of Muslims in South Africa today. The first presence of Muslims in South Africa was as slaves and political exiles in the 17th century (Dangor, 2003). Islam was repressed at that time, forcing Muslims to practice in secret to preserve their Islamic traditions and practices. Under these conditions, they turned to their faith and spirituality as a way to cope, which strengthened communal bonds and promoted resilience (Dangor, 1997; Sicard, 1989). Among those earliest Muslims were Islamic scholars who were instrumental in keeping Islam alive and promoted an ethos rooted in patience, prayer, and remembrance (Dangor, 1997; Dangor, 2003; Sicard, 1989). In later years, the migration of Muslims from the Indian subcontinent expanded Islam into other parts of South Africa. These Muslims also shaped the institutionalization of Islam, setting up key infrastructures, such as mosques (places of worship) and madrassas (Islamic schools), further shaping the presence of Islam in South Africa and reinforcing Islamic teachings in the lives of Muslims (Dangor, 2003; Vahed, 2021). During apartheid, Muslims were once again marginalized and subjected to an oppressive, racist regime. Racialized laws segregated individuals of color into specific regions; however, this espoused strength in a collective identity. Many Muslims drew strength from their religious beliefs and practices, with their Islamic ethos shaping their political resistance and providing a means to cope during civil unrest (Sicard, 1989). As a result, the spiritual and moral practices of Muslims today are shaped by their history of oppression and resistance, thereby shaping their potential to overcome difficult circumstances.

Coping can either be directed externally by changing the situation or directed internally by changing the meaning of the situation (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Emotion-focused coping is associated with adapting to a distressing situation through emotional responses, whereas problem-focused coping is an active response aimed at evaluating the situation and developing strategies to reduce the stress effects (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Denial and planning coping strategies were related to post-traumatic stress symptoms among participants during the SARS outbreak (Sim et al., 2010). During COVID-19, in 20 countries, individuals with moderate to severe anxiety and depression avoided thinking about the pandemic, reported struggling to cope, and were unsure of which coping strategies to use (Kar et al., 2021). While general coping strategies can be categorized as emotion-focused or problem-focused, religious coping offers an additional layer of meaning for those whose spirituality plays a central role in their daily lives.

Religion holds a strong positive association with meaning in life, even in contexts in which meaning and purpose are challenged (Krok, 2015). Across faith-based communities, religious coping allows individuals to view trying situations as having a higher meaning, an opportunity to grow themselves into better individuals, and gain more control in their lives by placing the experience as a test from God (Paloutzian & Park, 2005; Wnuk & Marcinkowski, 2014). These concepts are further illustrated during the COVID-19 pandemic, where individuals often interpreted difficult experiences as a test from God and a time to reflect on their spiritual state of being (Fatima et al., 2022). Religious coping is dichotomised between positive and negative coping. Religious coping can consist of various systems of practice, such as religious rituals, seeking support from congregations, and through examining events through a relationship with God that impacts well-being (Krägeloh et al., 2012; Adam & Ward, 2016).

Psychological well-being can be described as social and emotional competence derived from perceptions and behaviors that allow for healthy engagement, meaning, and self-realization (Keyes, 2002). Psychological well-being also focuses on individuals’ evaluation of themselves, such as recognizing positive aspects of their ability for growth, purpose, relationships, and being self-determined (Ryff & Keyes, 1995). Efficient coping can result in positive psychological outcomes, such as happiness, personal development, life satisfaction, and job performance (Loukzadeh & Bafrooi, 2013). A study on university students determined a significant relationship between psychological well-being and coping styles used, suggesting that the higher the psychological well-being profile was, the greater their use of coping strategies (Freire et al., 2016; Freire et al., 2018). Approach-oriented coping (active coping and seeking instrumental support) showed greater influence on psychological well-being among a sample of Taiwanese nurses, suggesting that occupation, context, and culture can make sense of the differential outcomes in coping strategies employed (Lee, Tzeng & Chiang, 2019).

Muslims engaging in religious coping strategies established the connection between their religious coping and psychological well-being, as evidenced in several studies (Berzengi et al., 2017; Adam & Ward, 2016; Aflakseir & Coleman, 2011). Within Muslim communities, religion is commonly perceived as playing a positive role in well-being (Koenig & Shohaib, 2014). Psychological well-being and religious beliefs are suggested to be positively correlated when Muslims identify as religious, resulting in greater levels of health and happiness than those who do not identify as religious (Green & Elliot, 2010). Muslims may rely on their religious beliefs and teachings to cope with life stressors (Abu Raiya et al., 2008; Adam & Ward, 2016), serving as a protective resource in times of significant distress (Fatima et al., 2018). Although not all religious coping is beneficial, positive religious coping, such as seeking comfort from God, has been associated with better mental health (Abu-Raiya & Pargament, 2015; Saffari et al., 2013). Inversely, negative religious coping, such as spiritual discontent, may contribute to increased distress and lowered states of well-being (Nurasikin et al., 2013). For many Muslims, religion plays a central role in their coping processes, and engaging in negative religious coping may conflict with their intrinsic religious values, thus negatively affecting their long-term psychological state. Pargament (1997) highlighted the notion that when coping diverges from religious principles, individuals may experience guilt and shame, which can further impact psychological states. These dynamics were even more pronounced during the COVID-19 pandemic, where positive religious coping positively predicted positive appraisals and negative religious coping negatively predicted positive appraisals in a sample of Pakistani Muslims (Fatima et al., 2022). Appraisals are key indicators in how individuals interpret an event as stressful, with positive appraisals associated with positive psychological outcomes during COVID-19 (Daniels et al., 2021; Wallis et al., 2023).

During the pandemic, religious coping was related to reduced stress among American Orthodox Jews (Pirutinsky, Cherniak & Rosmarin, 2020). However, in a sample of older adults in Jordan, most experienced high levels of death anxiety during COVID-19 and lower levels of religious coping and spiritual well-being (Rababa, Hayaineh & Bani-Iss, 2021). Religiosity and religious coping were found to moderate the relationships between coping and well-being, and hope and well-being, in Muslim samples during the pandemic (Hardjo et al., 2021). This suggests that the effects of coping and other protective factors on well-being may vary depending on the level of religiosity in Muslim populations.

Much research into the pandemic and religious coping has been focused on Muslim populations in the Western and Asian contexts, with limited research among those residing in Africa. Given the unique socio-political history of South Africa and the role of spirituality in navigating historical challenges, this study sought to examine the role of coping and religious coping on psychological well-being during a time of significant distress. This research aims to fill a gap in local and international literature, which can contribute to the development of appropriate mental health support systems sensitive to the needs of a religiously devout minority in South Africa. The aim of this study is to determine the coping styles used by South African Muslims, their level of psychological well-being, and the coping predictors of psychological well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021. The following research questions were formulated to meet this aim:

Participants were given an online questionnaire consisting of a demographics section, and the Brief Cope (Carver, 1997; Carver, Scheier & Weintraub, 1989), Brief Religious Coping Scale (Pargament, Feuille & Burdzy, 2011), and Psychological Well-Being Scale (Ryff & Keyes, 1995) were employed. Information requested in the demographic section included age, gender, region, education status, home language, population group, marital status, number of children, number of people in the household, and medical history. These questions helped to describe the sample across both years and contextualize the findings within the South African Muslim population. In 2020, age and medical history were used together to code individuals into a low risk or high risk group for moderate to severe COVID-19 symptoms. In 2021, the survey asked if the participant or their family members had contracted COVID-19 in the past year. Additionally, they were asked if they had lost a family member or friend in the past year due to the virus.

The Global Health and Mental Health Scale identified as the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) (Hays et al., 2018) was used to determine the general physical and mental health of this sample, and to exclude any respondent who scored low or high (10th or 90th percentile) on either physical or mental health to limit the impact of extreme values on our results. This measure aligns with the World Health Organization (WHO) assessment of health and is a reliable and valid measure for physical and mental health across general populations (Bató et al., 2024; Pellicciari et al., 2021).

To assess coping, the Brief COPE inventory (Carver, 1997) was used to determine various coping styles suitable for assessing how individuals cope during acute and highly stressful circumstances (García et al., 2018). This scale has been validated in numerous contexts and populations, including Muslim samples (Rodrigues et al., 2022). This scale consists of 14 subscales, comprising problem-focused, emotion-focused, and maladaptive coping styles (active coping, planning, positive reframing, instrumental support, emotional support, venting, humor, acceptance, religion, self-blame, self-distraction, denial, substance use, and behavioral disengagement) (Carver, 1997). The Brief Cope consists of 28 items, with two items per subscale. Items are answered using a 4-point Likert scale (from 1: I haven’t been doing this at all, to 4: I have been doing this a lot). Higher scores indicate a greater use of the specific coping strategy. All subscales exceeded .60 alpha reliability except venting, denial, and acceptance (Carver, 1997). The Brief Cope has shown excellent internal consistency reliability for each of the 14 subscales, with omega values ranging from 0.70Ω to 0.97Ω (Monzani, Dario, Patrizia et al, 2015). In the 2020 sample, internal consistency reliability for the subscales ranged from 0.85 (humor) to 0.61 (active coping). In the 2021 sample, subscale reliabilities ranged from 0.87 (substance use) to 0.62 (venting).

To assess religious coping, the Brief RCOPE was used, which is the short form of the Religious Coping measure by Pargament, Feuille & Burdzy (2011). It measures positive and negative religious coping strategies. Positive religious coping illustrates a secure relationship with God, whereas negative religious coping reflects tensions to spiritual connectedness (Pargament, Feuille & Burdzy 2011). This measure is relevant given that Muslims may turn to faith and spirituality during a time of crisis, therefore employing numerous religious coping strategies to mitigate acute stressors due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This scale was used to measure religious coping among different religious denominations, including Muslims (Mohammadzadeh & Najafi, 2018; Saunders & Stephenson, 2024). The domains of positive and negative coping were especially useful in examining the impact of positive and negative coping on psychological well-being and were, therefore, included in this study. This scale consists of 14 items, with seven items to measure each of the two subscales. Items are answered using a 5-point Likert scale (from 1: strongly disagree, to 5: strongly agree). Higher scores indicate a greater use of the religious coping domain. Internal consistency coefficients in a Muslim sample indicated that positive religious coping has a Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.91 and negative religious coping has an alpha coefficient of 0.68 (Berzengi et al., 2017). The internal consistency reliability alphas in the 2020 and 2021 samples ranged between 0.85 and 0.92 for both subscales.

The Psychological Well-Being Scale-revised, developed by Ryff and Keyes (1995), measures aspects of positive functioning and well-being, and relates to long-term psychological states that may be impacted by the pandemic. This scale has been validated in a Muslim sample (Khanjani et al., 2014). This scale consists of 18 items measuring six psychological well-being domains. These domains are autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life, positive relations with others, personal growth, and self-acceptance. These items are answered on a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A higher score reflects higher levels of psychological well-being. Ryff and Keyes (1995) reported internal consistency reliability coefficients ranging from .33 (purpose in life) to .56 (positive relations with others). In 2018, Costea-Barlutiu, Bǎlas-Baconschi & Hathazi reported Cronbach alpha coefficients ranging from 0.62 to 0.75 for the six dimensions of psychological well-being. The internal consistency reliability coefficients in the 2020 sample ranged between 0.83 (Total Psychological Well-Being) and 0.61 (Environmental Mastery and Personal Growth). In 2021, the internal consistency reliability coefficients ranged from 0.81 (Total Psychological Well-being) to 0.54 (Personal Growth).

Ethical clearance for this study was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of the Witwatersrand (Protocol number: MASPR/20/06) and was deemed low risk. Participants were presented with a Participant Information Sheet (PIS) outlining the purpose of the study and the voluntary nature of their participation. Anonymity and confidentiality were ensured by not requesting identifying information and removing IP addresses from the extracted dataset from the survey platform. The PIS also provided a Muslim-focused nationwide hotline for counseling services to mitigate vulnerability. At the end of the PIS, participants were requested to consent to participating, ensuring informed consent before completing the questionnaire. The links were open for one month at each data collection point. Data was extracted and analysed using SPSS Version 27 and 28 (IBM Corp., 2020).

Descriptive statistics were used to analyze demographic information, coping styles, and psychological well-being in the samples in 2020 and 2021, with standard deviations reported for normally distributed data and medians and interquartile ranges for non-normally distributed data. A backward stepwise multiple linear regression was conducted to determine the predictors of overall psychological well-being and each domain of psychological well-being for 2020 and 2021, while controlling for religiosity and gender. The backward stepwise linear regression approach starts with all predictors in the model, sequentially removing the least significant predictors until a final model is reached with predictors that best explain the variance in the dependent variable (Field, 2013). Assumptions for the multiple linear regression were checked (linearity, normality of residuals, homoscedasticity, and outliers). The alpha level of significance was set at 0.05 for all inferential statistics.

As seen in Table 2, the coping styles were consistent across 2020 and 2021, displaying a similar pattern of ranking from most to least endorsed strategies. The most reported coping strategy was turning to religion, with a mean of 6.43 (SD = 1.54) in 2020 and 6.29 (SD = 1.66) in 2021. This was followed closely by acceptance for 2020 (mean = 6.31, SD = 1.45), which indicates a marginal decline in endorsement in 2021 (mean = 5.62, SD = 1.87). This was similarly evident with positive reframing reported higher in 2020 (mean = 5.28, SD = 1.66) than in 2021 (mean = 4.77, SD = 1.87). However, the overall pattern of coping strategies remained constant across the years. The lowest reported strategies include substance use reported in 2020 (mean = 2.16, SD = .69) and in 2021 (2.17, SD = .617). This was followed by behavioral disengagement in 2020 (mean = 2.87, SD = 1.22) and in 2021 (mean = 2.96, SD = 1.34), and denial in 2020 (mean = 2.96, SD = 1.35) and in 2021 (mean = 3.04, SD = 1.42). The highest reported less-than-functional coping style was self-distraction in 2020 (mean = 4.73, SD = 1.55), which reduced slightly in 2021 (mean = 3.66, SD = 1.60).

Positive religious coping was a highly endorsed coping style in both 2020 (median = 31, IQR = 7) and 2021 (median = 32, IQR = 7), while negative religious coping was reported consistently lower than positive religious coping in 2020 (mean = 12.28, SD = 5.49) and 2021 (mean = 13.55, SD = 5.69).

Psychological well-being varied across the years, with the most highly rated psychological well-being domain in 2020 as personal growth (mean = 8.74, SD = 1.25), and self-acceptance in 2021 (mean = 11.04, SD = 2.51). The two subscales produced different mean scores across both years, with the environmental mastery mean score increasing from 7.53 (SD = 1.52) in 2020 to 10.58 (SD = 2.39) in 2021. Similarly, self-acceptance resulted in a mean increase from 7.72 (SD = 1.57) in 2020 to 11.04 (SD = 2.51) in 2021. In addition, total psychological well-being increased from 45.84 (SD = 5.82) in 2020 to 51.56 (SD = 7.47) in 2021.

The descriptive results suggest that participants demonstrated a reliance on functional coping strategies more than less functional coping strategies during 2020 and 2021. However, some functional coping strategies were utilized less in 2021 than in 2020, such as acceptance and positive reframing. Participants utilized positive religious coping strategies more than negative coping for both years. The environmental mastery and self-acceptance well-being domains were rated higher in 2021 than in 2020, resulting in an increased mean score for total psychological well-being in 2021. However, these differences were not statistically significant, and marginal differences in scores across the years can be attributed to sampling bias.

Tables 3 and 4 present the final models with significant predictors of each psychological well-being domain in 2020 and 2021. The results for each model are reported below.

After 13 model iterations in 2020 and 15 model iterations in 2021, the Autonomy domain models’ statistics revealed that the model for 2020 accounted for 13% of the unique variance in autonomy, while the model in 2021 only accounted for 9% of the variance. In 2020, gender emerged as a significant negative predictor for autonomy (B = –0.39, p < 0.05), suggesting that males reported higher rates of autonomy in that year. Active coping positively predicted autonomy for both 2020 (B = .14, p < .05) and 2021 (B = .15, p < 0.05). Additionally, positive reframing was a significant positive predictor in 2020 (B = 0.11, p < 0.05), whereas instrumental support negatively predicted autonomy in the same year (B = –0.10, p < 0.05). Self-blame was a consistent negative predictor across both years (2020: B = –.22, p < .001; 2021: B = –.24, p < .001). Denial was a negative predictor in 2021 (B = –0.14, p < 0.05). The results indicate a similar pattern of predictors in both years, with self-blame and active coping emerging as consistent predictors of autonomy.

After 10 model iterations in 2020 and 14 model iterations in 2021, the final predictive models for environmental mastery accounted for 24% in 2020 and 39% in 2021. In 2020, positive reframing was a significant positive predictor of environmental mastery (B = 0.11, p < 0.05), while instrumental support emerged as a negative predictor (B = –0.14, p < 0.05). This trend reversed in 2021 with instrumental support becoming a positive predictor (B = 0.20, p < 0.05). Among the less functional coping styles, self-blame was a strong negative predictor in 2020 (B = –0.33, p < 0.001) and 2021 (B = –0.35, p < .001). Similarly, self-distraction also negatively predicted environmental mastery in 2020 (B = –0.14, p < 0.05), with larger effects noted in 2021 (B = –0.31, p < 0.01). Additionally, behavioral disengagement was a negative predictor in 2021 (B = –0.54, p < 0.01). The results indicate that more functional coping styles predicted environmental mastery in 2020, while less functional coping styles were stronger predictors of environmental mastery in 2021.

After 14 model iterations in 2020 and 12 model iterations in 2020, the final predictive model revealed that the predictors in 2020 explained 19% of the unique variance in personal growth and 25% of the variance in 2021. Active coping emerged as a positive predictor in both years, with a stronger effect in 2021(2020: B = 0.13, p < 0.05; 2021: B = 0.33, p < 0.001). In 2020, acceptance (B = 0.10, p < 0.05) and positive reframing (B = 0.08, p < 0.05) were significant positive predictors of personal growth. Instrumental support was a significant positive predictor in 2021 (B = 0.22, p < 0.05); however, emotional support unexpectedly emerged as a negative predictor in 2021 (B = –0.24, p < 0.05). Several less functional coping styles emerged as negative predictors in 2021. These were behavioural disengagement (B = –0.15, p < 0.05), denial (B = –0.20, p < 0.05) and self-distraction (B = –0.16, p < 0.05). Substance use (B = –0.23, p < 0.001) and self-blame (B = –0.11, p < 0.05) were the only significant negative predictors in 2020. Results indicate a greater influence of dysfunctional coping over time.

After 15 model iterations in 2020 and 12 model iterations in 2021, the models’ statistics revealed that the predictors in 2020 accounted for only 8% of the variance in 2020 and 29% of the variance in 2021. In 2020, instrumental support was a significant and positive predictor of positive relations with others 2020 (B = 0.23, p < 0.05), while positive reframing (B = 0.17, p < 0.05) and emotional support (B = 0.20, p < 0.05) were positive predictors in 2021. Behavioral disengagement (B = –0.24, p < 0.05) and self-blame were significant, negative predictors in 2020 (B = –0.27, p < 0.05). Whereas, self-distraction (B = –0.35, p < 0.001) and negative religious coping (B = –0.07, p < 0.05) were significant negative predictors in 2021. Results indicate that coping predictors in 2020 were characterised as supportive and avoidance, while 2021 included more maladaptive coping and showed greater explanatory power.

After 17 model iterations in 2020 and 14 model iterations in 2021, the model statistics revealed that the predictors in 2020 accounted for only 2% of the unique variance in 2020 and 9% in 2021. Self-distraction was the only predictor in 2020 (B = –0.19, p < 0.05), negatively predicting purpose in life. Emotional support (B = 0.24, p < 0.05) significantly and positively predicted purpose in life in 2021. Self-distraction (B = –0.25, p < 0.05) negatively predicted this subscale in 2021. From the results, self-distraction appears to undermine purpose in life across both years.

After 13 model iterations in 2020 and 12 model iterations in 2021, the final models’ statistics revealed that the predictors for self-acceptance accounted for 25% of the unique variance in 2020 and 30% in 2021. Positive reframing (B = 0.11, p < 0.05) and emotional support (B = 0.09, p < 0.05) predicted self-acceptance in 2020 only. Behavioral disengagement and self-blame consistently negatively predicted this self-acceptance across both years, with negative religious coping only marginally predicting self-acceptance in 2020 (B = –0.06, p < 0.05) and 2021 (B = –0.12, p < 0.05).

After 12 model iterations in 2020 and 13 model iterations in 2021, the final predictive models accounted for 29% of the variance in total well-being in 2020 and 38% in 2021. Positive reframing significantly and positively predicted total psychological well-being in 2020 (B = 0.51, p < 0.05) and in 2021 (B = 0.68, p < 0.05), while active coping (B = 0.46, p < 0.05) predicted total well-being in 2020 alone. Positive reframing consistently predicted total well-being in 2020 (B = 0.51, p < 0.05) and 2021 (B = 0.68, p < 0.05). Behavioral disengagement negatively predicted total well-being in both 2020 (B = –0.44, p < 0.05) and 2021 (B = –1.65, p < 0.001). This was similarly reflected with self-blame as a negative predictor in 2020 (B = –1.1, p < 0.001) and 2021 (B = –1.11, p < 0.001). Self-distraction was a negative predictor in 2021 (B = –0.91, p < 0.05), while substance use was a negative predictor in 2020 (B = –0.63, p < 0.05). Negative religious coping negatively predicted total psychological well-being in both 2020 (B = –0.12, p < 0.05) and 2021 (B = –0.21, p < 0.05).