:salam2:
In short philosophy of Equalitarianism / Egalitarianism is that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status and all must be treated equality. It is also accepted since past two hundred years in various forms.
So those who read about this or have any idea about what is Equalitarianism / Egalitarianism, they may share their ideas with us that how could a poor person will be equal to a rich person?
Re: Equalitarianism / Egalitarianism
Peace LKK,
I think it is impossible to answer this question unless we have one common meaning and purpose of the world. Few people say, this world is result of random event, few other believe in personalized meaning and purpose of the world which is also flawed logic to answer such questions.
Re: Equalitarianism / Egalitarianism
Peace ajazali,
I think that is the sum of all theories and those who realized and understand it in true sense will quickly progress to aggrand-izement related to oneself or for the benefit of his/her country. When this term of equality used in any form for worldly purpose then the hatress, jealously and disprespect to others just increase due to random events or believe in personalized meaning, as u stated above. Reason is obvious that one is talented and another is not. So I think the concept of poor and rich is purely based on worldly affairs.
In other way our religion teach us that humans are equal but those are more better who are more pious. So we don’t feel any grudge from such pious pplz and push forward ourselves to be like (among) those pious.
Re: Equalitarianism / Egalitarianism
I love the question: how a rich person is equal to a poor. I was hoping it would yield a great discussion here.
I myself am stumped when I think of this question; on one hand how can they be not equal in worth and on the other, they really are not equal. Can you please elaborate a little bit on the "one is talented and the other is not" and how the difference in worldly forms will lead to jealousy, etc. Also, is it really possible to answer if you don't take the material/worldy form in account?
Re: Equalitarianism / Egalitarianism
I love the question: how a rich person is equal to a poor. I was hoping it would yield a great discussion here.
I myself am stumped when I think of this question; on one hand how can they be not equal in worth and on the other, they really are not equal. Can you please elaborate a little bit on the "one is talented and the other is not" and how the difference in worldly forms will lead to jealousy, etc. Also, is it really possible to answer if you don't take the material/worldy form in account?
As you can see so many poor people are more contented then rich, so being rich does not mean he/she is better than poor any way. There is no perfect measure that can explain whether a rich is living more satisfactory life or a poor. Yes, there are poor people facing hardships of life, so are many rich people despite their worldly wealth. So the point still stands.
May be it could not yield a "great" discussion as I mentioned the reason, question cannot be answered satisfactorily without having a one-common meaning of the world.
Re: Equalitarianism / Egalitarianism
It is a very concrete concept in its pure form.
A false concept in some ways but a Good concept in other ways. It all depends how you look at it.
But it has many facets and sides including political, religious and social/economical. This can be discussed further if one wishes to.
Other ways to look at it is as a two directional concept. Rights of people versus responsibilities of people. For example everyone must get equal treatment by law.
But responsibilities of people can be different based on their ability to understand and follow the law. Such as a dumb or mentally retarded cannot be punished similarly as a person who is sane.
According to the Quran, if one kills an innocent person, it is like he has killed the whole of humanity! By the same token, if one saved a life, it would be like he has saved the whole of humanity! This teaching is a great example of the Quran’s respect for human life.
Also, Quran says: "All Human being are single nation"
**US Declaration of Independence **has used this as "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable; that all men are created equal and independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
**Socialism **brought it in different way and **Democracy **brought it another way.
Re: Equalitarianism / Egalitarianism
Hmmm, taking the religion out, how do we justify their equal worth? If the responsibilities are not the same, why the equal rights then.
To clarify, not for a nanosecond do I believe there is any difference in the value or worth of the two human lives regardless of their monetary status. This is just for argument's sake.
Re: Equalitarianism / Egalitarianism
Peace Scherbatsky,
Please read this: "Egalitarianism, which claims only to want an ‘equality’ in end results, hates the exceptional man who, through his own mental effort, achieves that which others cannot… In an attempt to ‘dumb down’ all students to the lowest common denominator, today’s educators no longer promote excellence and students of superior ability… Imagine the following Academy Award ceremony. There are no awards for best picture or best actor. Instead, every picture gets a certificate and every actor receives a prize. That is not an awards ceremony, you say? So it isn’t. But it is an egalitarian’s dream – and an achiever’s torment. Talent and ability create inequality… To rectify this supposed injustice, we are told to sacrifice the able to the unable. Egalitarianism demands the punishment and envy of anyone who is better than someone else at anything. We must tear down the competent and the strong – raze them to the level of the incompetent and the weak… What would happen to a Thomas Edison today? If he survived school with his mind intact, he would be shackled by government regulators. His wealth would be confiscated by the IRS. He would be accused of ‘unfair competition’ for inventing so many more products than his competitors.
On the other hand, Alexander Berkman suggests: “…equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity… Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse in fact… Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality… Far from levelling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development. For human character is diverse.”
Above quoted from: Egalitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]
Re: Equalitarianism / Egalitarianism
Peace Scherbatsky,
Equalitarianism / Egalitarianism is very wide in different dimesions like ajazali and diwana bhai explained. I think we cannot conclude all different dimesions on one path. Let me explain in my words what I understood/observed when I came across/read about Equalitarianism / Egalitarianism, that how come a poor is equal to rich or vice-versa.
Poor and rich classified due to quantity not quality. Here quantity referred to money and the money differentiate person (A) from person (B). So when a person (A) have more money compairing to person (B), he (A) runs behind quality and the person (B) may be or may be not feel jealously due to the those qualities which person (A) have and he (B) not.
For Example: First class have red carpet at airport, separate transit area, first entrance/exit and wide space in plane followed by business class. Then come economy class who gets narrow space with poor reception etc., so basically rules & regulation for all are same but there is something which differentiate everyone from each others and that is quantity (money).
I was reading Quran and came across this verse: " O mankind, fear your Lord, who created you from one soul and created from it its mate and dispersed from both of them many men and women. And fear Allah , through whom you ask one another, and the wombs. Indeed Allah is ever, over you, an Observer." **[Chapter 4 Verse 1]. **After reading this verse, I asked myself that 'if we were created from one soul then why we are not equal being poor or rich? Then I came across this beautiful verse: “Who believe in the unseen, establish prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them” [Chapter 2 Verse 3] In this verse those who spend out what Almighty Allah have provided them with are called as “Al-Muttaqun [the pious and righteous persons], means one who spend his quantity for the sake of Almighty Allah and don’t keep for quality i.e., wordly affairs”.
I remembered an incident where our beloved Prophet Muhammad 
ordered that “All Muhajareen and Ansars are brothers so share half with you brothers what you have”. They shared their half wealth, wives who married to two (by giving divorce to one) etc.,
Then I came across another hadith where Prophet Muhammad ordered us that “the riding one should greet the walking one, and the walking one should greet the sitting one…” mean a person who have more quality then another must greet to one who don’t have and that indicate equality/respect.
Then I remembered an incident of Hazrat Umar r.a. that He in his era (Dour-e-Khilafat) usually ramble at night and one Companion asked him that 'O Umar r.a.! You are ‘Khalifa’ why u ramble? He r.a. replied: 'By God! if a dog die due to thirst in my era (Dour-e-Khilafat) then on the day of Judgement I will be held responsible."
So I concluded that the best way is the way of Islam, where we don’t feel any grudge on pious pplz due to his qualities but if it is related to any wordly affairs, we feel jealous, hatress, depression etc., due to quantity.
Hope it make sense 