Pearson Edexcel International GCSE in Religious Studies · 4RS1 · Free · no account needed
Relationships between rich and poor: how the six religions answer
What do believers owe the poor? All six impose an obligation towards the poor and all six institutionalise it, so the comparison is between real mechanisms rather than between sentiments.
The question is Paper 1's 4.5 — Relationships between rich and poor, and it reaches into 4.1 (Human rights) of Pearson Edexcel International GCSE Religious Studies (4RS1). You are examined in the religion your centre enters, so each answer below links to the full unit for that religion — the explanation, the Grade 9 notes, the sources, the misconceptions, and the Teach and Defend gates. This page is the comparison; the unit is the exam.
The six answers, side by side
Buddhism — Relationships between rich and poor
Position. Dana is the first of the perfections; generosity loosens the attachment that causes suffering.
Inside the tradition. The lay/monastic relationship structures giving differently across traditions.
Rests on. The Pali Canon — Metta Sutta (Sutta Nipata 1:8); the four brahmaviharas (translated); Buddhist teaching — The Noble Eightfold Path; grouped as sila, samadhi and prajna (translated)
What this cell flattens. Much dana flows to the sangha rather than to the poor directly, which is a real difference from zakat.
Taught in full: 4.5 · Relationships between rich and poor · 4.1 · Human rights.
Christianity — Relationships between rich and poor
Position. Care for the poor is service to Christ himself and is attached to judgement; both charity and structural justice are taught.
Inside the tradition. Whether the Church's primary task is service or advocacy — liberation theology pressed the second.
Rests on. The Bible, New Testament — the Sheep and the Goats — Matthew 25:40 (translated); The Bible, Old Testament — the prophet Amos — Amos 5:24 (translated)
What this cell flattens. There is no fixed rate or percentage; the obligation is stated without being quantified.
Taught in full: 4.5 · Relationships between rich and poor · 4.1 · Human rights.
Hinduism — Relationships between rich and poor
Position. Daan (giving) and seva (selfless service) as duties that purify the giver as well as helping the receiver.
Inside the tradition. Broadly shared; the motive is emphasised differently across traditions.
Rests on. Hindu teaching — Daan and seva; taught across the epics and in modern Hindu practice (translated)
What this cell flattens. Giving for merit alone is criticised within the tradition, so the karmic benefit is not the point.
Taught in full: 4.5 · Relationships between rich and poor · 4.1 · Human rights.
Islam — Relationships between rich and poor
Position. Zakat is an obligatory annual payment with named categories of recipient; sadaqah is voluntary giving beyond it.
Inside the tradition. Broadly shared; the calculation details differ between schools.
Rests on. The Qur'an — Qur'an 9:60 (translated); Islamic practice — The Five Pillars (Sunni framing); recorded in Hadith collections including Sahih al-Bukhari
What this cell flattens. Zakat is a duty and a recipient's right, closer to a tax than to charity — and it is a Pillar, not an extra.
Taught in full: 4.5 · Relationships between rich and poor · 4.1 · Human rights.
Judaism — Relationships between rich and poor
Position. Tzedakah — from the root meaning JUSTICE, not charity; Maimonides ranks eight levels with empowerment highest.
Inside the tradition. Broadly shared.
Rests on. The Tanakh — Nevi'im (Prophets) — Micah 6:8 (translated); Jewish thought — Tikkun olam; developed in rabbinic and later kabbalistic teaching (translated)
What this cell flattens. The word itself collapses the charity/justice distinction, which is the strongest single point in this matrix.
Taught in full: 4.5 · Relationships between rich and poor · 4.1 · Human rights.
Sikhism — Relationships between rich and poor
Position. Vand Chhakna — sharing — is one of three duties; langar feeds anyone who comes, at no cost and at one level.
Inside the tradition. Broadly shared.
Rests on. Sikh teaching — Nam Japna, Kirat Karni, Vand Chhakna — taught by Guru Nanak (translated); Sikh practice — Langar and sewa; instituted by Guru Nanak and developed by Guru Amar Das (translated)
What this cell flattens. Daswandh (a tenth) is widely practised without being an enforced obligation.
Taught in full: 4.5 · Relationships between rich and poor · 4.1 · Human rights.
Where they agree
All six make giving obligatory rather than optional, and all six institutionalise it so that it does not depend on the giver's mood.
Where the real disagreement lies
Whether the obligation is QUANTIFIED (zakat, daswandh) or left to conscience, and whether the aim is relief or empowerment — on which Maimonides and modern development thinking agree with each other more than either does with simple almsgiving.
How to use this in the exam — and when not to
The strongest matrix on the specification for a 12-mark evaluation, because the justice/charity statement is a recurring question type and tzedakah and zakat are decisive evidence in it.
The other comparisons
- Death and life after death — What happens after death?
- Sanctity of life, abortion and euthanasia — Is human life sacred, and may it ever be deliberately ended?
- The principal text and its authority — What is the principal text, and what authority does it carry?
- The place of worship — What is the place of worship called, and what are its key features?
- The major festivals — Which major festival does the specification name, and what does it commemorate?
- Pilgrimage — Is pilgrimage required, and where do believers go?
- Equal rights and equal opportunities — What roles may women hold in the religious community?
- Conflict and war — May a believer fight?
- Leaders and leadership — Who has authority, and where does it come from?