There are a few misconceptions underlying this question that I want to straighten out before trying to answer it.
First, religion and philosophy are not the distinct entities the question presumes. Religion is the codification of philosophy. Every religion begins with the philosophical insight of a particular teacher. That philosophical teaching is gathered into a liturgy; solidified with a set of practices and injunctions; embellished with art, ritual, rites, and other aesthetic manifestations. The end result is religion. Over time religion may lose track of the underlying philosophical insights, at least for the bulk of the congregation: religious leaders can become more invested in their status and authority than in a faithful pursuit of the core philosophy, and congregations can collapse into lip-service practice, or focus on the dogmatic letter of the teaching rather than the living spirit of it. But while the philosophical core of religion might be reduced to esoteric mysticism, it never goes away entirely.
We have to take a bit of care with the notion of 'liberation.' Liberation is a soteriology: a theory about how to save ourselves from (to quote Hamlet) "the heartache, and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to." The problem is that while 'soteriology' is a general concept — we all want to find salvation from the miseries that life lades on us — 'liberation' is a more specific. To talk about 'liberation' we have to talk about what we need to be liberated from, and that can pull different philosophies off into various directions. True liberation (if I can speak of that) is a difficult concept: it implies freedom from both social and psychological constraints; it isn't purely individualistic or purely communitarian, but both and neither at the same time. So on one hand we end up with philosophers like Nietzsche, who suggest that all received morality is (at best) incomplete or (at worst) corrupt, and that we must liberate ourselves from those teachings and transcend them to find authentic moral positions. On the other hand, we find original teachers like Christ, who suggest that we only truly find ourselves in service and love to others, and need to liberate ourselves from the petty egoic concerns that lead us to fight and steal and lust.
Obviously, philosophers like Nietzsche do not tend to foster the creation of organized religions — though they can develop cultish followings among people who dogmatize their writing — and people like Christ do tend to foster such. But that is more a concern of the tendencies of followers than of the actual philosophies themselves.
If we exclude malignant cults (groups formed by people intent on dominating a smallish group of followers), then every founder of every religion intended to teach a system of liberation. Fully developed religions may (and often do) lose track of that. They may end up treating their congregations as flocks that need to be guided, not as people who need to be liberated, and they may do that for the best of misguided reasons. In that case, one eventually needs to see through their faith to the deeper teaching, and to transcend the structural limitations that the faith places on them (ostensibly for their own good). This is similar to the process that a child goes through as it enters adulthood: a child must break off from the container that parents create for it in order to return as an equal. It's in that 'returning as an equal' that liberation is found.