Will Allah Punish a Good Hindu?

[Gharib]

It is not a comment about the God, it is a comment about the believers because it is the believers whose behaviour affects everyone's lives.

So those kinds of comments spring from an exasperation of why. Why do people believe this? And his specific comment and others above qualify the question by proposing that the God-concept is unjust, cruel etc. Hence...why?

You have misunderstood Madhuri, if you look at robo's first post to which I replied you will see that it's about God himself and nothing else.

 

[Gharib]

This is a very flawed argument.

You are basically saying that a good Hindu is not a Hindu. Because even if I qualify that the 'unnamed' God is Brahman, you will call him 'bad' and therefore to you there is no such thing as a good Hindu.

Secondly, if a 'good' Muslim does not perform his duty, how can you call him a 'good' Muslim?

The argument is flawed because the question of 'Will Allah punish a good Hindu' is flawed, unreasonable and illogical.

It's not just about a 'good' Hindu, it applies to all people of other faiths. To make the question reasonable, I have to ask according to whose criteria is this said non-muslim GOOD?

 

[A-ManESL]

A-ManESL, are 'people of the book' also muslims? also those idol-worshippers and polytheists?

I said the word Muslim means submitter (to God).

Those who are not following the Muslim path as shown by Muhammad (pbuh) may be doing so only externally, since internally God's religion has and always been one; hence internally they may be following the same path at an esoteric level. The Quran has never asked the followers of other religions to accept it as a new faith altogether. On the other hand, it asks them to return to their own religions by first discarding all the aberrations that they have heaped thereon, and strictly adhere to their original faith.(see Quran 5:68-69, 2:62) If they do so, the purpose of the Quran is served ; for, if once one returns to his own religion in its pristine form, he will find that there is nothing therein but what the Quran itself has come forward to revive and represent. Its essential and fundamental message is no new message and that it is the same which the messengers of yore (who have come to all lands and spread God's knowledge in the various languages of that land, see Quran 14:4 (different approaches as the case may be)) had delivered.

This idea of wahdat-e-deen or "Unity of religion" has been described in detail in the Quranic commentary titled Tarjuman-al-Quran by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. Essentially it says that apparent differences in religions are differences in their exoteric (or religious laws derived from a certain theology) but the esoteric unity is maintained. (By the way while reading about the life of Ramakrishna, I read that his following Islam for a certain period of time was to illustrate this very point in a certain context; however that discussion would be far afield.)

Moreover if you read the remarkable work cited above, you would note that this is the proper understanding of the Quranic message, as per the author.

Regards

 

[beerisit]

he will find that there is nothing therein but what the Quran itself has come forward to revive and represent.

Do you mean that Adam received the Qu'ran as is minus the historical parts? If so would you understand any of the Qu'ran without the historical parts? After all Adam was the first prophet, yes, and taught the same as Muhammad?

 

[A-ManESL]

Do you mean that Adam received the Qu'ran as is minus the historical parts?

At a very fundamental level I have already stated that all messengers of God brought the same message (the word Quran is used in the context of Muhammad(pbuh) though).

If so would you understand any of the Qu'ran without the historical parts?

The proper approach to understanding the Qu'ran is to understand it in the style within which it is presented. Its appeal is to primitive understanding within man,(it is really a heart to heart talk) and historical parts are intended to convey a certain meaning, and should not be given undue emphasis. The emphasis should be on understanding that God is Real and the world temporal. To illustrate this point, whatever tools were required were used. The Quran was revealed in 7th C Arabia in an scenario where that meaning and message was easily understood by allusion to the stories/allegories within the Quran.

An extract from Rumi's Fihi Ma Fihi may be interesting to quote here:

Someone said: “Ibn Muqri recites the Koran correctly.”

Rumi said: Yes, he recites the form of the Koran correctly, but he has no knowledge of its meaning. This is proven by the fact that when he is questioned for its meaning, he cannot answer. He recites blindly. He is like a man who holds an old, tattered sable in his hand; he is offered a newer, finer sable, but he refuses it. So we can see that he doesn’t know what sable really is. Someone told him that this is sable, and he blindly accepted it.

It is like children playing with walnuts. Offer them the nut itself, or the oil of the walnut, and they will refuse it, saying, “The walnut is what we spin on the table. This doesn’t spin.” God’s treasuries are many, and God’s sciences are many. If he recites this Koran with knowledge, why does he reject the other eternal Koran?

I once explained to a Koran-teacher: The Koran says, “If the sea were ink for the Words of my Lord, the sea would be spent before the Words of my Lord are spent.” Now, with fifty drams of ink one can copy the whole of this Koran. Therefore, the Koran is only a symbol of God’s knowledge and all the knowledge belonging to God.

An apothecary puts a pinch of medicine in a piece of paper. You wouldn’t say, “The whole of the apothecary’s shop is in this paper.” That would be foolishness. After all, in the time of Moses and Jesus and the other prophets, the Koran existed. God’s speech existed, but it was not in Arabic. I explained this to the Koran-teacher in this way, but I could see that it made no impression so I let him go.

Regards

 

[elmarna]

Absolutely NOT!
No punishment for goodness

 

[LaaIlahaIllAllah]

Absolutely NOT!
No punishment for goodness

{But those who disbelieved - their deeds are like a mirage in a lowland which a thirsty one thinks is water until, when he comes to it, he finds it is nothing but finds Allah before Him, and He will pay him in full his due; and Allah is swift in account.}
[ Surat An-Nur/24, v. 39 ]

Their "goodness" will not help them if they die as disbelievers b/c they are committing the worst deed possible which is rejecting the message of Allah (Azza wa Jal) and committing shirk.

Unless they are of those who never heard of Islam and believing in Allah and His messenger. Those will get a chance and be tested on Day of Resurrection.

 

[Gharib]

{But those who disbelieved - their deeds are like a mirage in a lowland which a thirsty one thinks is water until, when he comes to it, he finds it is nothing but finds Allah before Him, and He will pay him in full his due; and Allah is swift in account.}
[ Surat An-Nur/24, v. 39 ]

Their "goodness" will not help them if they die as disbelievers b/c they are committing the worst deed possible which is rejecting the message of Allah (Azza wa Jal) and committing shirk.

Unless they are of those who never heard of Islam and believing in Allah and His messenger. Those will get a chance and be tested on Day of Resurrection.

I think a lot of people, including Muslims, are pulled into error with the use of the word 'good'. Good according to whom?

 

[LaaIlahaIllAllah]

I think a lot of people, including Muslims, are pulled into error with the use of the word 'good'. Good according to whom?

Yes, we should judge according to the Law and Guidance of God, which is the Quran, and the Sunnah of His messenger is included as well.

 

[Madhuri]

You have misunderstood Madhuri, if you look at robo's first post to which I replied you will see that it's about God himself and nothing else.

You must see the meaning and intention behind a person's words. What I have said to you is how I interpret his meaning/intention.

 

[Madhuri]

Does 'good', defined by Islam, mean only someone who worships Allah according to the Quran (only)?

 

[nameless]

Absolutely NOT!
No punishment for goodness

even if the hindu is a polytheist or idol worshiper?

 

[Gharib]

You must see the meaning and intention behind a person's words. What I have said to you is how I interpret his meaning/intention.

Lets not go into personal interpretation of the statement of another person. I can interpret his statement in a very different way.

 

[LaaIlahaIllAllah]

Does 'good', defined by Islam, mean only someone who worships Allah according to the Quran (only)?

Well, first if you don't die as a Muslim, your deeds will not help you even b/c you are committing the worst of deeds which is disbelief and making partners with Allah (Subhana wa Ta'ala).

There can still be "bad Muslims" which are those who don't do many good deeds and follow Quran and Sunnah properly. Some bad Muslims may even go to hell, Allah knows best.

But I think a Bad Muslim is still better than a "Good Disbeliever" in Islam cause at the end of the day, the worst sin is disbelief and the Muslim is not committing that.

And Allah (Azza wa Jal) knows best.

 

[Gharib]

Does 'good', defined by Islam, mean only someone who worships Allah according to the Quran (only)?

No, people who do not worship Allah do good too. But every good deed has it's own reward, it is contradictory with the teachings of Islam to say that a man (lets go with a Hindu man) who worships other than Allah but has raised an orphan and has not committed any injustice towards him/her will be in the highest level of Paradise and close to the Prophet like your two fingers are close to one another.

In a hadith, our Prophet has said that the one who raises and orphan and doesn't commit any injustice to them will be in Paradise with the Prophet like 'this' (he gestured with his index and middle finger to show the closeness).

While a Hindu may do what Islam considers good in this case, he will get his reward in this life for the good which he has done, it is not a light matter to raise an orphan and to be just to them.

But on the day of Judgement, intention is part of the criteria. What was his intention for raising the orphan? Was it for the sake of the God he believed in? If so, Allah has given an answer to that:

On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Allah (glorified and exalted be He) said:
I am so self-sufficient that I am in no need of having an associate. Thus he who does an action for someone else's sake as well as Mine will have that action renounced by Me to him whom he associated with Me.

It was related by Muslim (also by Ibn Majah).

Did he do it for the sake of goodness because it is a good thing to do so? If so, then what reward does he want from Allah? He didn't do it for the sake and pleasure of Allah.

 

[A-ManESL]

Did he do it for the sake of goodness because it is a good thing to do so? If so, then what reward does he want from Allah? He didn't do it for the sake and pleasure of Allah.

One of Allah's names is goodness (Al-Barr is one of the 99 names, and so is Al-Nafi). You are treating Allah as if he is a distinct entity and goodness is divorced from Him. It is important to realize that this treating as a distinct entity is encapsulating Him within parameters, which is incorrect. "No human vision can encompass Him, whereas He encompasses all human vision: for He alone is unfathomable, all-aware.-Quran 6:103"

Regards

 

[Gharib]

One of Allah's names is goodness (Al-Barr is one of the 99 names, and so is Al-Nafi). You are treating Allah as if he is a distinct entity and goodness is divorced from Him. It is important to realize that this treating as a distinct entity is encapsulating Him within parameters, which is incorrect. "No human vision can encompass Him, whereas He encompasses all human vision: for He alone is unfathomable, all-aware.-Quran 6:103"

Regards

I know that all goodness is from him, that's why he would reward a good action even if done by a non-muslim.

But how likely do you think it is that a non-muslim would do something for the sake of goodness because that is one of Allah's attributes?

You and I could claim we did something for the sake of Al Barr (The One from whom all goodness stems), but the same cannot be said for a non-muslim.

If we mix the 2 concepts, then to me it sounds as though there is nothing wrong with doing something for the sake of another God who one believes to be all powerful, Allah too is all powerful, but we can't mix the 2 and we don't say that Allah is not all powerful.

 

[A-ManESL]

I know that all goodness is from him, that's why he would reward a good action even if done by a non-muslim.

But how likely do you think it is that a non-muslim would do something for the sake of goodness because that is one of Allah's attributes?

You and I could claim we did something for the sake of Al Barr (The One from whom all goodness stems), but the same cannot be said for a non-muslim.

If we mix the 2 concepts, then to me it sounds as though there is nothing wrong with doing something for the sake of another God who one believes to be all powerful, Allah too is all powerful, but we can't mix the 2 and we don't say that Allah is not all powerful.

You use the term another God which leads me to believe that you a-priori assume that other faiths do not believe in Allah. Since God is one, I see no reason to believe that a non-Muslim is always believing in another God different from Allah. If any other name is used by some other faiths adherent why cannot it be a reference to Allah, without their realizing the external form of the name? Doesn't the Quran itself say in verse 14:4 that in all nations when messengers came they spread God's message in the language of that nation? So in different languages why their should not be different names. The purpose after-all is to not to bicker on the name but to focus on the "Everlasting Reality".

Moreover even if you assume that a person is doing something just for the sake of Goodness, or for the sake of Truth for that even so it is my opinion that he is indirectly doing it for the sake of God, for these are but names of God. To refer to God by Allah is the same as to refer to him by goodness, Truth, Beneficient One etc.

The Quran says, "Call Him Allah or Rahman (Beneficent). It is the same whichever you call. His are the most beautiful names." And at another place, "Allah has beautiful names. Invoke Him by them, and keep away from those who prevent them. They shall soon be repaid for what they do".

Regards

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

With existence always evolving including us human beings surely our intelligence too has evolved to understand that each human come from the same source only the source is labelled differently as per culture and since now with internet and globalization it is now a global village where walls are breaking down and understanding is bringing humanity closer to one world, one understanding of that one existence and one god.
In such a scenario there are no separation between two humans though the paths/approach may be different but the goal is the same.

What more can be said as speaking itself has created illusive perceptions to keep that separation for so long!

Love & rgds

 

[IslamBox]

Allah is very kind. He will not punish anyone more than his sins. But he will punish that Hindu for not being a Muslim as Allah gave him mind and power to understand things and religions which he did't.