Human Rights and Social Justice: Wealth and Poverty

Wealth itself — the possession of money and material resources — is not condemned by most religious traditions. What matters is the attitude to wealth and the use made of it. The AQA specification names "the uses of wealth" as one of the three issues requiring contrasting religious views.

Christianity: Jesus' teaching presents wealth as a potential spiritual danger but not inherently sinful. In Mark 10:25 he says "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God" — warning against placing security in wealth rather than God. By contrast, the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14–30) commends the productive use of resources. The key distinction is between wealth as a servant (used for good) and wealth as a master (pursued above God and others).

Islam: Wealth is described as a trust (amanah) from Allah. Surah 57:7 — "Believe in Allah and His Messenger, and spend from that in which He has made you successors." Earning lawfully (halal) and spending generously are religious duties. Hoarding wealth (kanz) is condemned in Surah 9:34–35.

Judaism: The Torah permits and even anticipates prosperity, but commands redistribution. Deuteronomy 15:10 — "You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him." The concept of bal tigra (do not withhold) frames generosity as obligation.

Sikhism: Guru Nanak rejected materialism (maya — attachment to worldly things) as a spiritual obstacle. However, earning honestly (kirat karna) and sharing with others (wand chhakna) are two of Sikhism's three core principles. Wealth earned honestly and shared generously is honourable.

Religious traditions go beyond encouraging generosity — they teach that those with wealth have a duty to address poverty and its causes.

Causes of poverty include: lack of access to education and healthcare, corruption, war and displacement, climate-related disasters, structural economic inequalities, and exploitative trade relationships. Religious organisations typically argue that tackling causes — not just symptoms — is required by justice.

Christian responses:

• The Catholic Church's social teaching (developed from Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum) holds that the goods of the earth are intended for all (universal destination of goods). Extreme inequality is a structural sin.
• Christian Aid and CAFOD both engage in development work and advocacy for fair trade policies — addressing causes of poverty, not just providing aid.
• Matthew 25:31–46 — Jesus identifies himself with the hungry, thirsty, stranger, naked, sick, and imprisoned: "Whatever you did to one of the least of these… you did to me."

Islamic responses:

• Zakat (2.5% of surplus savings, one of the Five Pillars) is a legally mandated annual redistribution. It is not charity — it is the right of the poor in the wealth of the prosperous.
• Sadaqah (voluntary giving beyond zakat) is encouraged and richly rewarded spiritually.
• Islamic Relief and Muslim Aid run global development programmes addressing education, water, and economic empowerment.

Jewish responses:

• Tzedakah is legally required, not optional. Maimonides' eight levels of giving rank anonymous giving that helps someone become self-sufficient as the highest form.

Level	Form of tzedakah
Highest	Helping someone find work or become self-sufficient
2nd	Anonymous giving where neither party knows the other
3rd	Anonymous donor, known recipient
Lowest	Giving reluctantly after being asked

Exploitation of those in poverty takes multiple forms. The specification identifies three: unfair pay, excessive interest on loans, and people-trafficking.

Fair pay: Religious traditions consistently teach that workers deserve just wages. James 5:4 — "The wages of the labourers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you." Islam requires prompt, fair payment of wages — the Prophet Muhammad is reported to have said, "Give the worker his wages before his sweat dries." Christian trade unionism and Catholic Social Teaching (principle of a just wage) have historically driven labour rights movements.

Excessive interest on loans (usury): Charging high interest on loans to vulnerable people is condemned across traditions.

• Christianity: Medieval canon law banned usury entirely. Contemporary Christian ethics critiques predatory lending (e.g. payday loans with high APRs) as exploitative. The Church of England has campaigned against payday lenders.
• Islam: Riba (interest on loans) is explicitly prohibited. Quran 2:275 — "Allah has permitted trade and has forbidden interest." Islamic banking uses profit-sharing (murabaha, musharakah) instead of interest-bearing loans. This prohibition aims to prevent the accumulation of wealth by lenders at the expense of borrowers already in need.
• Judaism: The Torah prohibits charging interest to fellow Israelites (Exodus 22:25), framing it as exploitation of the vulnerable.

People-trafficking: The buying and selling of human beings for forced labour or sexual exploitation is a contemporary form of slavery. It is condemned by all major religious traditions as a fundamental violation of human dignity.

• Religious organisations including the Salvation Army (Christian) run anti-trafficking programmes and support for survivors.
• The Vatican has called trafficking "a crime against humanity."
• Islamic scholars across traditions issue strong condemnations of trafficking as categorically haram.

The specification also asks about the responsibilities of those living in poverty to help themselves overcome the difficulties they face. This creates a genuine ethical tension.

One view: Individuals have a duty to work towards improving their own situation — accepting help that enables self-sufficiency, developing skills, and not remaining passive. This is echoed in:

• 2 Thessalonians 3:10 — "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat" — cited in some Protestant traditions to emphasise self-reliance.
• The Jewish ideal of tzedakah's highest level: enabling self-sufficiency, which requires the recipient's own effort.

Contrasting view: Structural poverty is not a personal failing — poverty arising from war, disability, discrimination, or economic systems beyond individual control cannot be addressed through individual effort alone. Religious justice frameworks insist that the obligation to give is unconditional and does not depend on the recipient's behaviour.

Perspective	Emphasis
Conservative Christian	Personal responsibility; work ethic; self-reliance as virtue
Liberation theology	Structural sin; collective action required; the poor are not responsible for systemic injustice
Islamic	Zakat is a right of the poor regardless of cause; sadaqah is freely given without conditions
Humanist	Emphasises systemic causes; welfare systems and redistribution as rational social policy

Exam tip: "Responsibilities of those in poverty" is a nuanced spec point. The spec requires awareness of structural causes — avoid treating poverty as simply a personal failing. Present the tension between individual responsibility and systemic injustice.

All major religious traditions institutionalise charitable giving, though the form differs.

Christian tithing: Traditionally, Christians give a tithe — one tenth of income — to the church and charitable causes. Malachi 3:10 — "Bring the full tithes into the storehouse." This is observed formally in many evangelical churches; Catholic practice emphasises giving proportionally according to means.

Islamic Zakah: One of the Five Pillars. Paid annually at 2.5% of nisab (savings above a minimum threshold). Eight categories of eligible recipients are specified in Quran 9:60 — including the poor, those in debt, and travellers in need. Zakah is not voluntary; failing to pay it is sinful.

Jewish Tzedakah: Required by Jewish law. There is no fixed percentage, though historical norms suggest 10–20% of income. Synagogues maintain tzedakah boxes for community collection; giving is considered an act of justice, not generosity.

Sikh Langar: The Sikh langar (free community kitchen in every gurdwara) provides meals to all, regardless of religion, caste, or background. It is funded by voluntary contributions of food, money, and time (seva — selfless service). Rather than giving money to the poor, the community serves the poor directly. This is practical charity embodying the Sikh principles of equality and community.

Tradition	Form of giving	Is it mandatory?	Amount
Christianity	Tithing / offering	Strongly encouraged; varies by tradition	Traditionally 10%
Islam	Zakah	Obligatory (pillar of faith)	2.5% of surplus savings
Judaism	Tzedakah	Obligatory	10–20% by tradition
Sikhism	Dasvandh (tenth) / langar	Strongly encouraged	10% ideally; langar as seva

(Extra context — utilitarian and rights-based frameworks are not explicitly named in the AQA 8062 spec for the wealth section, but underpin the arguments students encounter and help structure evaluation answers.)

Two contrasting ethical frameworks help evaluate religious and non-religious responses to poverty.

Utilitarian approach: The right action is that which produces the greatest good for the greatest number. Peter Singer's utilitarian argument (Famine, Affluence and Morality, 1972) holds that if it is within our power to prevent something bad (like a child dying of starvation) without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we are morally required to do it. On this view, the wealthy are obligated to give substantially — not merely generously.

Rights-based approach: Every person has a right to a dignified life, adequate food, shelter, and healthcare. Poverty violates these rights. The obligation to relieve poverty follows from the duty to respect rights — it does not depend on calculating welfare. This approach underpins much of the UN Sustainable Development Goals framework.

Religious approaches combine elements of both: they ground the duty to give in divine command and human dignity (rights-like), while also arguing that a just society produces flourishing for all (consequentialist resonance).

1. Confusing Zakah with voluntary charity

Zakah is obligatory — one of the Five Pillars of Islam. It is not optional generosity. Sadaqah is the voluntary giving. Confusing the two misrepresents Islamic teaching and loses marks on knowledge questions.

2. Saying Islam bans interest without explaining why

The prohibition on riba is rooted in preventing exploitation of the vulnerable and ensuring that wealth circulates fairly. Explaining the reasoning, not just the rule, is needed for higher-mark questions.

3. Treating wealth as straightforwardly condemned by religion

Most traditions distinguish between having wealth and being enslaved to it. Quoting "the love of money is the root of all evil" (1 Timothy 6:10) — often misquoted as "money is the root of all evil" — with care: it is the love of money, not money itself.

4. Ignoring the tension between charity and self-reliance

The spec explicitly includes the responsibilities of those in poverty. A strong answer acknowledges this tension rather than treating poverty solely as the problem of the wealthy.

5. Listing religious charities without explaining the motivation

Naming CAFOD, Christian Aid, or Islamic Relief scores a mark. Explaining why they exist — rooted in specific religious teachings — is what reaches the 6-mark level.