Short answer
No. In Vedanta, karma is the Lord's requital (his repayment for deeds). The Brahma Sutra says the fruit of every deed comes from him. On this teaching, a child born blind is serving a sentence. Manu's law book says such people are born so for former crimes, and are "despised by the virtuous". Yet no charge is read, no record is shown, and the child remembers nothing. The chain of lives has no beginning, so no first free act ever earned the sentence. Some Hindus, and Jains and Buddhists, teach karma with no Lord. Then it is a blind process, neither just nor unjust. Islam teaches one life and one judgement. Each person reads his own record, and no one bears another's burden. The Qur'an says there is no fault in the blind. The Prophet (ﷺ) promised Paradise to believers who lose their sight and are patient.
Full explanation
The Hindu teaching: karma is the Lord's requital
Karma is the teaching that every deed brings back its fruit, in this life or a later one. Vedanta is the school that reads the Upanishads (the Veda's teachings on the soul and God (﷾)) through the Brahma Sutra. In Vedanta, karma is not chance and not a blind force. The Brahma Sutra is a short, ancient text said to be by Badarayana. It says that the fruit of works comes from the Lord, "for (that only) is possible". Shankara, a Vedanta teacher of about the eighth century, explains this. Only the ruler of all can bring about the requital that fits each agent's merit. Requital means repayment for what a person has done. He alone knows every difference of place and time. A deed cannot do it, because it passes away as soon as it is done. Ramanuja, a Vedanta teacher of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, says the same. Action, "non-intelligent and transitory", cannot bring about a result in the future, so the rewards come from the all-knowing Lord. Not every Hindu school agreed. The Brahma Sutra reports that Jaimini, to whom the Mimamsa Sutras are ascribed, held that religious merit itself brings the fruits. The Mimamsa is the school that studies the rules of sacrifice. On this view the deed leaves an unseen after-effect, apurva, and "the result springs from the deed only". One reason given is that a Lord who dealt out the results "would have to be taxed with partiality and cruelty". Badarayana rejects this view in the next sutra (short saying) and names the Lord as the cause. Why then are creatures so unequal, some happy and some wretched? The Sutra answers that the Lord cannot be blamed, because he looks to merit and demerit. Shankara compares him to the rain, which falls on all seeds alike while each seed grows after its kind. He concludes that the Lord creates all creatures "in forms and conditions corresponding to—and retributive of—their former deeds".
“From him (i.e. the Lord, there comes) the fruit (of works); for (that only) is possible.”
“The ruler of all who by turns provides for the creation, the subsistence and the reabsorption of the world, and who knows all the differences of place and time, he alone is capable of effecting all those modes of requital which are in accordance with the merit of the agents; actions, on the other hand, which pass away as soon as done, have no power of bringing about results at some future time, since nothing can spring from nothing.”
“For it is he only—the all-knowing, all-powerful, supremely generous one—who being pleased by sacrifices, gifts, offerings, and the like, as well as by pious meditation, is in a position to bestow the different forms of enjoyment in this and the heavenly world, and Release which consists in attaining to a nature like his own. For action which is non-intelligent and transitory is incapable of bringing about a result connected with a future time.”
“Gaimini (thinks) for the same reasons that religious merit (is what brings about the fruits of actions).”
“Now it is clear that a deed cannot effect a result at some future time, unless, before passing away, it gives birth to some unseen result; we therefore assume that there exists some result which we call apûrva, and which may be viewed either as an imperceptible after-state of the deed or as an imperceptible antecedent state of the result. This hypothesis removes all difficulties, while on the other hand it is impossible that the Lord should effect the results of actions. For in the first place, one uniform cause cannot be made to account for a great variety of effects; in the second place, the Lord would have to be taxed with partiality and cruelty; and in the third place, if the deed itself did not bring about its own fruit, it would be useless to perform it at all.—For all these reasons the result springs from the deed only, whether meritorious or non-meritorious.”
“Bâdarâyana, however, thinks the former (i. e. the Lord, to be the cause of the fruits of action), since he is designated as the cause (of the actions themselves).”
“Inequality (of dispensation) and cruelty (the Lord can)not (be reproached with), on account of his regarding (merit and demerit); for so (Scripture) declares.”
“The Lord, we reply, cannot be reproached with inequality of dispensation and cruelty, 'because he is bound by regards.' If the Lord on his own account, without any extraneous regards, produced this unequal creation, he would expose himself to blame; but the fact is, that in creating he is bound by certain regards, i. e. he has to look to merit and demerit. Hence the circumstance of the creation being unequal is due to the merit and demerit of the living creatures created, and is not a fault for which the Lord is to blame. The position of the Lord is to be looked on as analogous to that of Parganya, the Giver of rain. For as Parganya is the common cause of the production of rice, barley, and other plants, while the difference between the various species is due to the various potentialities lying hidden in the respective seeds, so the Lord is the common cause of the creation of gods, men, &c., while the differences between these classes of beings are due to the different merit belonging to the individual souls.”
“All Vedânta-texts moreover declare that the Lord is the only cause of all creation. And his creating all creatures in forms and conditions corresponding to—and retributive of—their former deeds, is just what entitles us to call the Lord the cause of all fruits of actions.”
Birth as reward and punishment, in the scriptures themselves
The teaching is in the shruti, the revealed layer. The Chandogya Upanishad says that those whose conduct has been good soon reach a good birth. It names the birth of a Brahmin (priest), a Kshatriya (warrior) or a Vaishya (trader). Those whose conduct has been evil reach an evil birth, as a dog, a hog or a Chandala, an outcaste. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna speaks as the Lord and says that he continually hurls the cruel and unholy "only into demoniac wombs". There they are "deluded in every birth". The Manusmriti, the best known of the law books, spells it out. Some men are changed in appearance for crimes in this life, and some for crimes "in a former (existence)". It lists the marks. Stealing a Brahmin's gold brings diseased nails, stealing the words of the Veda loss of speech, and stealing clothes white leprosy. Then it gives the cause: "a remnant of (the guilt of former) crimes". So "are born idiots, dumb, blind, deaf, and deformed men, who are (all) despised by the virtuous". That is why, it says, penances must be done: those whose sins are not expiated "are born (again) with disgraceful marks".
“Those whose conduct has been good, will quickly attain some good birth, the birth of a Brâhmana, or a Kshatriya, or a Vaisya. But those whose conduct has been evil, will quickly attain an evil birth, the birth of a dog, or a hog, or a Kandâla.”
“These enemies, ferocious, meanest of men, and unholy, I continually hurl down to these worlds, only into demoniac wombs. Coming into demoniac wombs, deluded in every birth, they go down to the vilest state, O son of Kuntî! without ever coming to me.”
“Some wicked men suffer a change of their (natural) appearance in consequence of crimes committed in this life, and some in consequence of those committed in a former (existence).”
Manu lists the marks that follow particular sins: the man who steals a Brahmin's gold has diseased nails, the drinker of liquor black teeth, the slayer of a Brahmin consumption, the violator of his teacher's bed a diseased skin; a stealer of grain lacks limbs, a stealer of the words of the Veda loses his speech (three commentators explain: one who learns the Veda without permission by hearing another recite it; another takes it as a plagiarist), a stealer of clothes has white leprosy, a horse-thief is lame. By verse 52 the stealer of a lamp becomes blind and the one who puts it out one-eyed. Bühler notes that some commentators and texts omit verse 52.
“Thus in consequence of a remnant of (the guilt of former) crimes, are born idiots, dumb, blind, deaf, and deformed men, who are (all) despised by the virtuous.”
“Penances, therefore, must always be performed for the sake of purification, because those whose sins have not been expiated, are born (again) with disgraceful marks.”
A sentence with no charge, no hearing and no record
This page criticises a teaching, not any person. A child born blind or deaf is not a criminal, and no one should be treated as one. But on the texts above, that is what the child's body is: the Lord's retribution for deeds done before birth. A just sentence names the crime, hears the accused and shows the evidence. Here there is no charge, no hearing and no record. The child cannot remember the deed, and no one can say which deed it was. Manu's list, where one sin brings one mark and another sin another, cannot be checked by anyone. The law then treated the mark as a sign of the guilt. A twice-born man (one of the three upper classes) may owe a penance for a deed in a former life. He must keep away from virtuous men until it is done. The commentators explain that the former deed "may be inferred" from black teeth "or some other bodily defect". A blind man who is present at the funeral feast costs the giver the reward for ninety guests. The law also shut them out of inheritance: those born blind or deaf, and those who cannot speak, receive no share. Manu adds, and it must be said, that they should still be given food and clothing without stint. The duty falls on a man who knows the law, as far as he is able. But food and clothing given to the excluded is not justice done to the innocent.
“Thus in consequence of a remnant of (the guilt of former) crimes, are born idiots, dumb, blind, deaf, and deformed men, who are (all) despised by the virtuous.”
“A twice-born man, having become liable to perform a penance, be it by (the decree of) fate or by (an act) committed in a former life, must not, before the penance has been performed, have intercourse with virtuous men.”
“A blind man by his presence causes to the giver (of the feast) the loss of the reward for ninety (guests), a one-eyed man for sixty, one who suffers from white leprosy for a hundred, and one punished by a (terrible) disease for a thousand.”
“Eunuchs and outcasts, (persons) born blind or deaf, the insane, idiots and the dumb, as well as those deficient in any organ (of action or sensation), receive no share. But it is just that (a man) who knows (the law) should give even to all of them food and raiment without stint, according to his ability; he who gives it not will become an outcast.”
The classical answer: the chain has no beginning
Hindu teachers saw this problem long ago, and Shankara states it himself. If the Lord gives each creature what its earlier deeds deserve, what did creatures deserve at the first creation, before they had done anything? And if deeds explain conditions while conditions explain deeds, the reasoning runs in a circle. The Brahma Sutra answers that the world of rebirth has no beginning. Shankara explains that merit and inequality are "like seed and sprout, caused as well as causes". So there was never a first creation with no past behind it. A beginning, he argues, would leave pleasure and pain given out with no cause. Then we would have to accept "rewards and punishments being allotted, without reference to previous good or bad actions".
“If it be objected that it (viz. the Lord's having regard to merit and demerit) is impossible on account of the non-distinction (of merit and demerit, previous to the first creation); we refute the objection on the ground of (the world) being without a beginning.”
“But—an objection is raised—the passage, 'Being only this was in the beginning, one, without a second,' affirms that before the creation there was no distinction and consequently no merit on account of which the creation might have become unequal. And if we assume the Lord to have been guided in his dispensations by the actions of living beings subsequent to the creation, we involve ourselves in the circular reasoning that work depends on diversity of condition of life, and diversity of condition again on work. The Lord may be considered as acting with regard to religious merit after distinction had once arisen; but as before that the cause of inequality, viz. merit, did not exist, it follows that the first creation must have been free from inequalities. This objection we meet by the remark, that the transmigratory world is without beginning.—The objection would be valid if the world had a beginning; but as it is without beginning, merit and inequality are, like seed and sprout, caused as well as causes, and there is therefore no logical objection to their operation.”
“The beginninglessness of the world recommends itself to reason. For if it had a beginning it would follow that, the world springing into existence without a cause, the released souls also would again enter into the circle of transmigratory existence; and further, as then there would exist no determining cause of the unequal dispensation of pleasure and pain, we should have to acquiesce in the doctrine of rewards and punishments being allotted, without reference to previous good or bad actions.”
Why an endless chain does not make the sentence just
Shankara's answer makes the circle endless; it does not break it. Each birth is explained by an earlier one, and that by one before it, for ever. So the chain never explains why there is suffering at all, or why one soul's chain runs through blindness and another's through ease. Every answer is only: because of an earlier one. There is a deeper problem. The Kaushitaki Upanishad, as Shankara quotes it, speaks of the one "whom he wishes to lead down from these worlds". The Lord makes him "do a bad deed". The commentators explain that this is no injustice. A being's previous merit or demerit "determines the specific quality of the actions which he performs in his present existence". Then each deed is shaped by an earlier sentence, and each sentence answers an earlier deed. There is no first act done freely by a soul with a clean record. Shankara says elsewhere that the soul still acts: "The Lord indeed causes it to act, but it acts itself." Yet the Lord moves it now with regard to its former efforts, and those with regard to efforts before them. Shankara calls this "a regressus", and it goes back for ever. Without a first free act, "deserved" has nothing to stand on. This argument does not depend on the universe having a beginning in time. Grant the endless cycles of Hindu cosmology: a chain of sentences with no first free act still cannot make any one of them just.
“But—an objection is raised—the passage, 'Being only this was in the beginning, one, without a second,' affirms that before the creation there was no distinction and consequently no merit on account of which the creation might have become unequal. And if we assume the Lord to have been guided in his dispensations by the actions of living beings subsequent to the creation, we involve ourselves in the circular reasoning that work depends on diversity of condition of life, and diversity of condition again on work. The Lord may be considered as acting with regard to religious merit after distinction had once arisen; but as before that the cause of inequality, viz. merit, did not exist, it follows that the first creation must have been free from inequalities. This objection we meet by the remark, that the transmigratory world is without beginning.—The objection would be valid if the world had a beginning; but as it is without beginning, merit and inequality are, like seed and sprout, caused as well as causes, and there is therefore no logical objection to their operation.”
“And if we are asked how we come to know that the Lord, in creating this world with its various conditions, is bound by regards, we reply that Scripture declares that; compare, for instance, the two following passages, 'For he (the Lord) makes him, whom he wishes to lead up from these worlds, do a good deed; and the same makes him, whom he wishes to lead down from these worlds, do a bad deed' (Kaush. Up. III, 8); and, 'A man becomes good by good work, bad by bad work' (Bri. Up. III, 2, 13).”
“From this passage we must not—the commentators say—infer injustice on the part of the Lord; for the previous merit or demerit of a being determines the specific quality of the actions which he performs in his present existence, the Lord acting as the common cause only (as Parganya does).”
“By no means, we reply; for although the activity of the soul is not independent, yet the soul does act. The Lord indeed causes it to act, but it acts itself. Moreover, the Lord in causing it to act now has regard to its former efforts, and he caused it to act in a former existence, having regard to its efforts previous to that existence; a regressus against which, considering the eternity of the samsâra, no objections can be raised.”
Without a Lord: Jaimini, the Buddhists and the Jains
Some teach karma with no Lord who gives out the fruits. Jaimini held, as Shankara sets out his view, that "the result springs from the deed only". Buddhists and Jains also teach karma and rebirth with no Lord. The Milindapanha is a Buddhist book in which the monk Nagasena answers the questions of King Milinda. The king asks why men are not alike, some short-lived, sickly, poor or low-born and others the opposite. Nagasena answers that plants differ because their seeds differ. He quotes the Buddha: beings are "inheritors of Karma", and "It is Karma that divides them up into low and high". Yet Buddhists do not say that all suffering is karma. The Buddha named bile, phlegm, wind and the weather as causes of pain too. Nagasena says the fruit of karma "is much less than that which arises from other causes". He adds: "No one without a Buddha's insight can fix the extent of the action of Karma." The Buddha counted the results of deeds among four things that are "unthinkable". The Uttaradhyayana is a Jain scripture. It teaches eight kinds of karma, "bound by which the soul turns round and round in the Circle of Births". They fix pain and pleasure, the length of life and the family one is born into. Each soul bears its own: "the Karman follows the doer". A Jain hymn denies any maker "acting by his own free will".
“Now it is clear that a deed cannot effect a result at some future time, unless, before passing away, it gives birth to some unseen result; we therefore assume that there exists some result which we call apûrva, and which may be viewed either as an imperceptible after-state of the deed or as an imperceptible antecedent state of the result. This hypothesis removes all difficulties, while on the other hand it is impossible that the Lord should effect the results of actions. For in the first place, one uniform cause cannot be made to account for a great variety of effects; in the second place, the Lord would have to be taxed with partiality and cruelty; and in the third place, if the deed itself did not bring about its own fruit, it would be useless to perform it at all.—For all these reasons the result springs from the deed only, whether meritorious or non-meritorious.”
“The king said: 'Why is it, Nâgasena, that all men are not alike, but some are short-lived and some long-lived, some sickly and some healthy, some ugly and some beautiful, some without influence and some of great power, some poor and some wealthy, some low born and some high born, some stupid and some wise?' The Elder replied: 'Why is it that all vegetables are not alike, but some sour, and some salt, and some pungent, and some acid, and some astringent, and some sweet?' 'I fancy, Sir, it is because they come from different kinds of seeds.' 'And just so, great king, are the differences you have mentioned among men to be explained. For it has been said by the Blessed One: "Beings, O brahmin, have each their own Karma, are inheritors of Karma, belong to the tribe of their Karma, are relatives by Karma, have each their Karma as their protecting overlord. It is Karma that divides them up into low and high and the like divisions."'”
The wanderer Sivaka asks the Buddha about those who teach that everything a person feels, pleasant, painful or neutral, is because of past deeds. The Buddha answers that some feelings come from bile, some from phlegm, some from wind, some from their combination, some from change in the weather, some from not taking care of oneself, some from exertion, and some are the result of past deeds. Those who say that everything a person feels comes from past deeds go beyond what is known, and they are wrong.
“So what arises as the fruit of Karma is much less than that which arises from other causes. And the ignorant go too far when they say that every pain is produced as the fruit of Karma. No one without a Buddha's insight can fix the extent of the action of Karma.”
“Mendicants, these four things are unthinkable. They should not be thought about, and anyone who tries to think about them will go mad or get frustrated.”
“I shall now in due order explain the eight kinds of Karman, bound by which the soul turns round and round in the Circle of Births.”
The eight kinds of karma are those that obstruct right knowledge, obstruct right faith, lead to experiencing pain or pleasure, lead to delusion, determine the length of life, determine the name or individuality of the embodied soul, determine his family line (gotra), and prevent entry on the path to eternal bliss.
“Neither his kinsmen, nor his friends, nor his sons, nor his relations will share his suffering, he alone has to bear it; for the Karman follows the doer.”
“There is here no maker acting by his own free will, else his influence would extend to the making of a mat. What would be the use of yourself or all the artisans, if Íśwara fabricates the three worlds?”
Why karma without a Lord is still not justice
None of this escapes the problem; it sharpens it. Buddhists answer that karma is intention itself, so an accident makes none. But intention explains why a deed is good or bad. It does not explain how a cruel intention becomes a short life or a blind eye, in fitting measure. That needs a scale of what each wrong deserves, and keeping such a scale is a judge's work. Shankara himself argued that the unseen after-effect of a deed cannot act by itself. It is "of non-intelligent nature, comparable to a piece of wood or metal, and as such cannot act unless moved by some intelligent being". If karma is a process like seeds growing after their kind, it is not justice at all: a sour seed does not deserve its sourness. So for a Buddhist a child's blindness has one of two sources. It is karma that no one but a Buddha can read, or one of the other causes the Buddha named, such as illness or injury. In the first case, a sentence no one can read is the problem this page began with. In the second, karma is not the answer to why the child suffers. Where karma does divide beings "into low and high", the other objections need no Lord. They come from memory, from the endless chain and from the missing first free act. Islam gives a third answer. The hardship is neither a hidden sentence nor a blind cause, but a test from God (﷾), who sees it and repays it.
“It is intention that I call deeds. For after making a choice one acts by way of body, speech, and mind.”
“Nor, in the second place, have we the right to assume that the fruit will, at some future time, spring from the so-called supersensuous principle (apûrva), which itself is supposed to be a direct result of the deed; for that so-called supersensuous principle is something of non-intelligent nature, comparable to a piece of wood or metal, and as such cannot act unless moved by some intelligent being.”
“So what arises as the fruit of Karma is much less than that which arises from other causes. And the ignorant go too far when they say that every pain is produced as the fruit of Karma. No one without a Buddha's insight can fix the extent of the action of Karma.”
“Mendicants, these four things are unthinkable. They should not be thought about, and anyone who tries to think about them will go mad or get frustrated.”
“The king said: 'Why is it, Nâgasena, that all men are not alike, but some are short-lived and some long-lived, some sickly and some healthy, some ugly and some beautiful, some without influence and some of great power, some poor and some wealthy, some low born and some high born, some stupid and some wise?' The Elder replied: 'Why is it that all vegetables are not alike, but some sour, and some salt, and some pungent, and some acid, and some astringent, and some sweet?' 'I fancy, Sir, it is because they come from different kinds of seeds.' 'And just so, great king, are the differences you have mentioned among men to be explained. For it has been said by the Blessed One: "Beings, O brahmin, have each their own Karma, are inheritors of Karma, belong to the tribe of their Karma, are relatives by Karma, have each their Karma as their protecting overlord. It is Karma that divides them up into low and high and the like divisions."'”
The wanderer Sivaka asks the Buddha about those who teach that everything a person feels, pleasant, painful or neutral, is because of past deeds. The Buddha answers that some feelings come from bile, some from phlegm, some from wind, some from their combination, some from change in the weather, some from not taking care of oneself, some from exertion, and some are the result of past deeds. Those who say that everything a person feels comes from past deeds go beyond what is known, and they are wrong.
One life, and a record its owner reads
The Qur'an teaches one life in this world and one judgement after it. No one is sentenced unseen. On the Day of Judgement each person is given a scroll and told, "Read thine (own) record". The book "leaves out nothing small or great", and not one is treated with injustice. Even a person's hands and feet will bear witness to what they did. No soul carries the guilt of another: "no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another". A person has nothing but what he strives for. No one is punished before he has been warned: "nor would We visit with Our Wrath until We had sent a messenger (to give warning)".
“Every man's fate We have fastened on his own neck: On the Day of Judgment We shall bring out for him a scroll, which he will see spread open. (It will be said to him:) "Read thine (own) record: Sufficient is thy soul this day to make out an account against thee."”
“And the Book (of Deeds) will be placed (before you); and thou wilt see the sinful in great terror because of what is (recorded) therein; they will say, "Ah! woe to us! what a Book is this! It leaves out nothing small or great, but takes account thereof!" They will find all that they did, placed before them: And not one will thy Lord treat with injustice.”
“That Day shall We set a seal on their mouths. But their hands will speak to us, and their feet bear witness, to all that they did.”
“Say: "Shall I seek for (my) Cherisher other than Allah, when He is the Cherisher of all things (that exist)? Every soul draws the meed of its acts on none but itself: no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another. Your goal in the end is towards Allah: He will tell you the truth of the things wherein ye disputed."”
“Namely, that no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another; That man can have nothing but what he strives for;”
“Who receiveth guidance, receiveth it for his own benefit: who goeth astray doth so to his own loss: No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another: nor would We visit with Our Wrath until We had sent a messenger (to give warning).”
| Question | Karma as the Lord's requital | Islam |
|---|---|---|
| How many lives? | Birth after birth, in a chain with no beginning. | One life, then one judgement. |
| Is the record shown? | No charge is read and no record is shown; the deed is not remembered. | Each person reads his own record, which leaves out nothing small or great. |
| Whose deeds count? | Deeds from lives the person cannot remember. | No one bears another's burden; each has what he strove for. |
| The blind? | Manu's law book says the virtuous despise them. | No fault in the blind; Paradise for the believer who loses his sight and is patient. |
No fault in the blind
Manu says the blind are "despised by the virtuous". The Qur'an says, "It is no fault in the blind nor in one born lame, nor in one afflicted with illness". The verse lets them eat freely in the homes of others, "in company or separately". The Prophet (ﷺ) once frowned and turned away from a blind man who came asking to be taught. The Qur'an rebuked him for it, and the rebuke stands in the Qur'an to this day. The Prophet (ﷺ) gave a promise from Allah (﷾) to the believer who loses his sight. If he is patient, Allah (﷾) will give him Paradise in place of his eyes. A woman with epilepsy asked the Prophet (ﷺ) to pray for her cure. He offered her the choice of patience with Paradise, and she chose patience. Ibn Abbas, a Companion of the Prophet (ﷺ), later pointed her out as a woman of the people of Paradise. The Prophet (ﷺ) said that Allah (﷾) does not look at people's faces or wealth, but at their hearts and deeds. A blind or deaf believer stands before God (﷾) exactly as anyone else does. In Islam the loss is a trial that is honoured and repaid, never a brand of guilt.
“Thus in consequence of a remnant of (the guilt of former) crimes, are born idiots, dumb, blind, deaf, and deformed men, who are (all) despised by the virtuous.”
“It is no fault in the blind nor in one born lame, nor in one afflicted with illness, nor in yourselves, that ye should eat in your own houses, or those of your fathers, or your mothers, or your brothers, or your sisters, or your father's brothers or your father's sisters, or your mother's brothers, or your mother's sisters, or in houses of which the keys are in your possession, or in the house of a sincere friend of yours: there is no blame on you, whether ye eat in company or separately. But if ye enter houses, salute each other - a greeting of blessing and purity as from Allah. Thus does Allah make clear the signs to you: that ye may understand.”
“(The Prophet) frowned and turned away, Because there came to him the blind man (interrupting). But what could tell thee but that perchance he might grow (in spiritual understanding)?- Or that he might receive admonition, and the teaching might profit him? As to one who regards Himself as self-sufficient, To him dost thou attend; Though it is no blame to thee if he grow not (in spiritual understanding). But as to him who came to thee striving earnestly, And with fear (in his heart), Of him wast thou unmindful.”
Anas ibn Malik heard the Prophet (ﷺ) say that Allah said: when I try My servant through his two beloved things, meaning his eyes, and he is patient, I will give him Paradise in their place. Al-Bukhari placed it under the heading "the merit of one who has lost his sight".
Ata ibn Abi Rabah reports that Ibn Abbas offered to show him a woman of the people of Paradise. She was a black woman who had come to the Prophet (ﷺ) saying that she suffered fits of epilepsy in which her body became uncovered, and asked him to pray for her. He said: if you wish, be patient and Paradise is yours; or if you wish, I will pray to Allah to heal you. She said she would be patient, but asked him to pray that she would not become uncovered, and he prayed for her.
Abu Huraira reports that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: Allah does not look at your faces or your wealth, but He looks at your hearts and your deeds.
Children, hardship and the purpose of life
The Prophet (ﷺ) said every child is born upon the fitra, the natural disposition God (﷾) gave mankind, as a young animal is born whole. Nothing from a life before is laid on him. Children who die are with Abraham in Paradise. In one report, when the Prophet (ﷺ) was asked about the children of idolaters, he said they are there too. Hardship in this life is not a hidden sentence. No tiredness, illness or grief reaches a believer, not even the prick of a thorn, without God (﷾) wiping away some of his sins by it. God (﷾) raises some above others "that He may try you in the gifts He hath given you". A difference in circumstances is a test, not a verdict. A newborn is not on trial, for no sin is laid on him. His pain is seen and weighed, and if he dies he goes to Paradise. The test in a child's pain is for those who love and care for him. The Qur'an gives the reason for life itself: God (﷾) "created Death and Life, that He may try which of you is best in deed". And it promises that "those who patiently persevere will truly receive a reward without measure". The page on why God (﷾) allows suffering sets out the rest.
Abu Hurayra reports that the Prophet (ﷺ) said every child is born upon the fitra, the true faith, and it is his parents who make him a Jew, a Christian or a Magian, just as an animal gives birth to a whole young one: do you see any of them born mutilated?
Samura ibn Jundub reports a long dream the Prophet (ﷺ) told his Companions. Two angels showed him, among other things, a very tall man in a garden with a great many children around him. They told him the man was Abraham, and the children were every child who died upon the fitra, the natural disposition God gave mankind. Some Muslims asked: and the children of the idolaters? He said: and the children of the idolaters.
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri and Abu Hurayra report that the Prophet (ﷺ) said no tiredness, illness, sorrow, sadness, hurt or distress reaches a Muslim, not even the prick of a thorn, without Allah wiping away some of his sins because of it.
“It is He Who hath made you (His) agents, inheritors of the earth: He hath raised you in ranks, some above others: that He may try you in the gifts He hath given you: for thy Lord is quick in punishment: yet He is indeed Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”
“We shall set up scales of justice for the Day of Judgment, so that not a soul will be dealt with unjustly in the least, and if there be (no more than) the weight of a mustard seed, We will bring it (to account): and enough are We to take account.”
“Be sure we shall test you with something of fear and hunger, some loss in goods or lives or the fruits (of your toil), but give glad tidings to those who patiently persevere, Who say, when afflicted with calamity: "To Allah We belong, and to Him is our return":- They are those on whom (Descend) blessings from Allah, and Mercy, and they are the ones that receive guidance.”
“He Who created Death and Life, that He may try which of you is best in deed: and He is the Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving;-”
“Say: "O ye my servants who believe! Fear your Lord, good is (the reward) for those who do good in this world. Spacious is Allah's earth! those who patiently persevere will truly receive a reward without measure!"”
The replies, answered
Shankara, commentary on Brahma Sutra 2.1.34 — Sacred Books of the East 34, pp. 358-359
“The Lord, we reply, cannot be reproached with inequality of dispensation and cruelty, 'because he is bound by regards.' If the Lord on his own account, without any extraneous regards, produced this unequal creation, he would expose himself to blame; but the fact is, that in creating he is bound by certain regards, i. e. he has to look to merit and demerit. Hence the circumstance of the creation being unequal is due to the merit and demerit of the living creatures created, and is not a fault for which the Lord is to blame. The position of the Lord is to be looked on as analogous to that of Parganya, the Giver of rain. For as Parganya is the common cause of the production of rice, barley, and other plants, while the difference between the various species is due to the various potentialities lying hidden in the respective seeds, so the Lord is the common cause of the creation of gods, men, &c., while the differences between these classes of beings are due to the different merit belonging to the individual souls.”
Cited for
Karma needs no memory, any more than a seed needs to remember the tree it came from. A drunk driver who forgets the crash still caused it, and no one remembers his own infancy. Karma is cause and effect, as rain makes each seed grow after its kind, not a trial in a court.
The response
Vedanta itself does not treat karma as a blind process. The Brahma Sutra says the fruit comes from the Lord. Shankara says the Lord "alone is capable of effecting all those modes of requital which are in accordance with the merit of the agents". He speaks of "rewards and punishments" for past good or bad actions. Some Hindus hold instead, with Jaimini, that "the result springs from the deed only", with no Lord. The reason given is worth noting: a Lord who dealt out such results "would have to be taxed with partiality and cruelty". Badarayana rejects that view, and Shankara answers that an unseen after-effect "cannot act unless moved by some intelligent being". Either way, a blind process can be neither just nor unjust. A judge's sentence is another matter, and a just judge names the charge and shows the evidence. The drunk driver is convicted on evidence, and he is plainly the same man who drove. A man who has forgotten his infancy is still the one body that others watched grow. Nothing anyone can observe joins one birth to another. A child born blind can be shown nothing: no one can say which deed he is paying for. Manu claims to know, but his answers cannot be tested: loss of speech for stealing the words of the Veda, white leprosy for stealing clothes. In Islam no one is judged without his record: "Read thine (own) record". The book "leaves out nothing small or great", and even a man's hands and feet bear witness.
Where it lands — In Vedanta karma is the Lord's sentence, and a just sentence needs a charge and a record. Without a Lord, karma is a blind process, and that is not justice either.
Manusmriti 11.53 — chapter 11, verse 53
“Thus in consequence of a remnant of (the guilt of former) crimes, are born idiots, dumb, blind, deaf, and deformed men, who are (all) despised by the virtuous.”
Cited for
Manu is a law book of its age, smriti, not revealed shruti. Its list of sins and birth defects is folk belief. The doctrine of karma stands in the Upanishads and the Gita without it.
The response
The teaching that birth is reward and punishment is in the shruti itself. The Chandogya Upanishad speaks of those whose conduct has been evil. They "will quickly attain an evil birth, the birth of a dog, or a hog, or a Kandâla", an outcaste. In the Gita the Lord says he hurls the cruel and unholy "only into demoniac wombs". The Brahma Sutra says the Lord is not to blame for the inequality of creatures, because he looks to their merit and demerit. Shankara says he creates all creatures "in forms and conditions corresponding to—and retributive of—their former deeds". Manu only names particular sentences. Set Manu aside, and a child's condition at birth is still, in these texts, retribution for deeds done before it.
Where it lands — The Upanishads, the Gita and the Brahma Sutra teach that birth is requital for former deeds. Manu only gives the details.
Bhagavad Gita 2:22 — chapter 2, verse 22
“As a man, casting off old clothes, puts on others and new ones, so the embodied (self) casting off old bodies, goes to others and new ones.”
Cited for
The child is not a new innocent. The same eternal self that acted before now wears a new body, as a man puts on new clothes. The one who suffers is the one who did the deed. Krishna tells Arjuna that both of them have passed through many births, and says, "I know them all".
The response
If the self carries no memory of the deed, and no record anyone can check, the claim cannot be checked. Nothing shows that this child did that deed. The one who suffers knows only this life and this mind, and cannot answer for what he cannot know. A court that said "you did it in a life you cannot remember" would not be called just anywhere on earth. The Qur'an holds each soul to its own deeds in its own life: "no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another". A person has nothing but what he strives for. The Prophet (ﷺ) said every child is born upon the fitra, as a young animal is born whole. No debt from a life before is laid on him. Krishna's own words grant the point: he knows the past births, and Arjuna does not. In the Qur'an each person is shown his own record and told, "Read thine (own) record".
Where it lands — An identity no one can trace cannot carry a guilt no one can show. Islam holds each soul to the deeds of its own life.
Shankara, commentary on Brahma Sutra 3.2.38 — Sacred Books of the East 38, p. 181
“The ruler of all who by turns provides for the creation, the subsistence and the reabsorption of the world, and who knows all the differences of place and time, he alone is capable of effecting all those modes of requital which are in accordance with the merit of the agents; actions, on the other hand, which pass away as soon as done, have no power of bringing about results at some future time, since nothing can spring from nothing.”
Cited for
The Lord knows all things. Human courts need a charge and evidence because human judges can err. The Lord cannot err, so he needs no hearing. His sentence is just whether or not the soul is told why.
The response
The God (﷾) of the Qur'an knows all things too, yet He does not judge unseen. He shows each person his own record: "Sufficient is thy soul this day to make out an account against thee." A person's own limbs bear witness. Messengers came first, so that mankind "should have no plea against Allah". The record is shown for the one judged, not for the Judge. A sentence whose reason can never be known cannot be owned, repented of or learned from. Manu demands penances, because those whose sins "have not been expiated" are born with marks. Yet no one can say which sins they were.
Where it lands — The all-knowing God (﷾) of the Qur'an still shows each soul its record and warns it first. The sentence at birth shows nothing.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5 — chapter 4, section 4, verse 5
“And here they say that a person consists of desires. And as is his desire, so is his will; and as is his will, so is his deed; and whatever deed he does, that he will reap.”
Cited for
No one is sentenced. The soul goes where its own desires lead: "as is his desire, so is his will; and as is his will, so is his deed". In that sense each soul chose its birth.
The response
The same verse ends "whatever deed he does, that he will reap": reaping, not choosing. Desire is not consent to its fruit: a thief wants the gold, not the prison. No one desires to be born blind. A choice no one remembers making cannot be shown to be a choice. And the texts on this page speak of punishment, not choice. The Gita's Lord says he "continually" hurls the cruel into demoniac wombs. Manu speaks of crimes and "disgraceful marks". If the birth was chosen, it was not a punishment, and those texts are wrong to call it one. If it was a punishment, it was not chosen. Islam does not tell the blind that they chose blindness. It calls hardship a test sent by God (﷾), and He repays it.
Where it lands — Desire bearing its fruit is still reaping, not consent. The texts call such births punishment, and a punishment is not a choice.
Bhagavad Gita 18:66 — chapter 18, verse 66
“Forsaking all duties, come to me as (your) sole refuge. I will release you from all sins. Be not grieved.”
Cited for
Karma is not a court but a school. It makes people good, because every deed returns to the one who did it. Each life is a chance to grow toward release, and the Lord's grace can end the chain: "I will release you from all sins."
The response
A reason to do good is not the same as justice done. And a lesson forgotten at every birth teaches nothing, because the pupil never knows what he is being taught. Islam gives the same motive with the record kept: "anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil, shall see it". He sees it himself. The Gita's promise shows that the Lord can forgive, and the Qur'an says so too: "Despair not of the Mercy of Allah". But in Islam the call to repent comes in this one life, to a person who knows what he is turning from. Grace may end a sentence, but it cannot show that the sentence was deserved. A pardon for a crime no one can name does not prove the crime was done.
Where it lands — Karma may give a motive, but a lesson no one remembers teaches nothing, and a sentence no one can name is not justice.
Qur'an 42:30 — Surat al-Shura (Consultation), verse 30
“Whatever misfortune happens to you, is because on the things your hands have wrought, and for many (of them) He grants forgiveness.”
Cited for
The Qur'an itself says, "Whatever misfortune happens to you, is because on the things your hands have wrought." That is karma: suffering comes from one's own deeds.
The response
The verse speaks to people about deeds they have done in this life. In the same breath it says "for many (of them) He grants forgiveness". The Prophet (ﷺ) taught that no hardship reaches a believer, not even a thorn's prick, without some of his sins being wiped away by it. Hardship cleans the record. It is not a sentence hidden from the one who bears it. The verse never makes a newborn's body a verdict on a life before, and the Qur'an rules that out: no one bears another's burden. Nor does Islam say all hardship comes from sin. God (﷾) raises some above others "that He may try you". And the Prophet (ﷺ) promised Paradise to the believer who loses his sight and is patient.
Where it lands — 42:30 speaks of deeds done in this life, joined to forgiveness. It never makes a child's body a sentence for a past life.
Qur'an 6:165 — Surat al-An'am (The Cattle), verse 165
“It is He Who hath made you (His) agents, inheritors of the earth: He hath raised you in ranks, some above others: that He may try you in the gifts He hath given you: for thy Lord is quick in punishment: yet He is indeed Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”
Cited for
Children suffer in Islam too, and Islam calls it a test. Then God inflicts pain on the innocent for no reason. Karma at least says the suffering was deserved.
The response
A test and a sentence are different things. A sentence looks back to a crime and brands the one who bears it. A test looks forward to a reward, and the one who bears it is honoured. A newborn is not on trial at all. No sin is laid on him, his pain is seen and weighed, and children who die go to Paradise. The test in a child's pain is for those who love and care for him. God (﷾) says He will test people with "some loss in goods or lives or the fruits (of your toil)". He gives glad tidings to the patient. The Qur'an says "It is no fault in the blind nor in one born lame, nor in one afflicted with illness". Manu says the blind are "despised by the virtuous". It says a blind man at a funeral feast costs the giver the reward for ninety guests. The Qur'an rebuked the Prophet (ﷺ) himself for frowning at a blind man. Allah (﷾) promises Paradise to the one who loses his sight and is patient. The Prophet (ﷺ) offered Paradise to a woman with epilepsy who chose patience. On the Day of Judgement every wrong is weighed, down to a mustard seed. Karma's "deserved" is a claim no one can check. Islam's promise is that no pain is wasted and none goes unrepaid. The page on why God (﷾) allows suffering sets out the rest.
Where it lands — In Islam a child's suffering is not a sentence: the child is repaid, and the trial is for those around him.
Qur'an 72:23 — Surat al-Jinn (The Jinn), verse 23
“"Unless I proclaim what I receive from Allah and His Messages: for any that disobey Allah and His Messenger,- for them is Hell: they shall dwell therein for ever."”
Cited for
Islam threatens eternal Hell for the sins of one short life. Karma is kinder: its hells end, and every soul gets chance after chance.
The response
In Islam no one is punished for a message that never reached him. God (﷾) says: "nor would We visit with Our Wrath until We had sent a messenger (to give warning)". Each person is judged by his own record, which he reads. God's (﷾) mercy prevails over His anger. A good deed is written ten times over, and an evil deed only as itself. He forgives all sins to those who turn back to Him: "Despair not of the Mercy of Allah". Nor is Hell a price counted per sin. The Qur'an says of those who stand before the Fire: "if they were returned, they would certainly relapse to the things they were forbidden". Hell answers what a person has made of himself, after every warning and every offer of mercy. And "Allah is never unjust in the least degree". Nor are Hindu hells always temporary. Madhva, a Vedanta teacher of about the thirteenth century, founded the Dvaita school. He quotes texts he counts as scripture: those who hate the Lord fall into the hell of darkness and never rise out of it. He also quotes texts naming "the two eternal hells". As the Hindu scholar R. G. Bhandarkar (1837-1925) reports, Madhva's school holds that some souls are "always going through the circle of existences". Others are "fit for the condition of darkness". And karma's chances are taken with no memory of the lesson, under a sentence no one explained. The page on people who never heard of Islam sets out the rest.
Where it lands — Islam punishes no one before a warning, judges each by his own record, and forgives every sin repented of. Madhva's school of Vedanta teaches an eternal hell too.
Stevenson 1993, birthmarks and past-life claims
Reports that of 895 children who claimed to remember a previous life, or were thought by adults to have had one, 309 (35 per cent) had birthmarks or birth defects that were said to correspond to a wound, usually fatal, or other mark on the deceased person whose life the child said it remembered; in 43 of 49 cases where a medical document, usually a post-mortem report, was obtained, it confirmed the correspondence. Such children, he writes, have been found wherever they have been looked for, but most easily in the countries of South Asia.
Cited for
Children in India and elsewhere remember past lives. Researchers such as Ian Stevenson, a psychiatrist at the University of Virginia, documented hundreds of cases, some with birthmarks matching wounds on the person remembered. Rebirth is a fact, so karma is real.
The response
Grant every report, and they show at most a return, not a just sentence. Stevenson's own finding is that the children's marks were said to match wounds, usually fatal, on the person remembered. That is an injury carried over, not a punishment for a crime. The mark falls on the one who was wounded, not on the one who wounded him. That is the opposite of Manu's scheme, in which loss of speech punishes the theft of the Veda's words. Stevenson also found such cases most easily in South Asia, where rebirth is already believed. And rebirth is not the teaching of the Rig Veda's funeral hymns. They send the dead to Yama and the Fathers "in highest heaven", not back to a womb.
Where it lands — Even if every report were true, it would show a return, not justice: the marks match wounds suffered, not crimes committed.
Qur'an 7:172-173 — Surat al-A'raf (The Heights), verses 172-173
“When thy Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants, and made them testify concerning themselves, (saying): "Am I not your Lord (who cherishes and sustains you)?"- They said: "Yea! We do testify!" (This), lest ye should say on the Day of Judgment: "Of this we were never mindful": Or lest ye should say: "Our fathers before us may have taken false gods, but we are (their) descendants after them: wilt Thou then destroy us because of the deeds of men who were futile?"”
Cited for
Islam holds every soul to a covenant made before birth, which no one remembers. That is no better than karma for a past life no one remembers.
The response
The verses give the covenant's purpose themselves. It was taken "lest ye should say on the Day of Judgment: 'Of this we were never mindful'". Nor could they blame their fathers for their false gods. It is a witness placed in every soul, not a charge laid against it. No one is punished on that account alone: "nor would We visit with Our Wrath until We had sent a messenger (to give warning)". What the covenant leaves in each person is the knowledge of God (﷾), the pattern on which He made mankind. The Prophet (ﷺ) said every child is born upon it. Karma's forgotten deed is a crime punished now, in a body, with no record. The covenant is a knowledge of God (﷾) called on now, by a messenger, with a whole life in which to answer. And no one bears another's burden.
Where it lands — The covenant is the knowledge of God (﷾) in every soul, not a forgotten crime. No one is punished for it until a messenger has warned him.
Qur'an 57:22-23 — Surat al-Hadid (The Iron), verses 22-23
“No misfortune can happen on earth or in your souls but is recorded in a decree before We bring it into existence: That is truly easy for Allah: In order that ye may not despair over matters that pass you by, nor exult over favours bestowed upon you. For Allah loveth not any vainglorious boaster,-”
Cited for
The Qur'an says no misfortune happens but it is recorded in a decree before it comes. So Islam also fixes every suffering in advance, and gives no better reason for it than karma. Karma at least says it was earned.
The response
The next verse gives the purpose. It is so "that ye may not despair over matters that pass you by, nor exult over favours bestowed upon you". It is told to comfort the one who suffers, not to accuse him. A decree of what will happen is God's (﷾) knowledge, written in advance. It is not a sentence for a deed done in a life no one remembers. In Islam hardship is a test that is repaid. It wipes away sins, and the believer who loses his sight and is patient is promised Paradise. The Upanishads have a harder decree. Shankara quotes the Kaushitaki to prove that the Lord looks to merit. It says the Lord makes the one "whom he wishes to lead down from these worlds, do a bad deed". The commentators explain that a being's merit or demerit from before "determines the specific quality of the actions which he performs in his present existence". Then not only the suffering but the sin itself is part of the sentence for a forgotten past. The Qur'an also says that when a people went wrong, "Allah let their hearts go wrong". But there the chain has a beginning. Those people knew that Moses was God's (﷾) messenger, and they turned away first, by their own act. Every person is born on the fitra and warned by a messenger. God (﷾) sends none astray "except those who forsake (the path)". In the Kaushitaki, as the commentators read it, there is no first turning: every bad deed answers an earlier one, back without end. The page on whether Islam is fatalistic sets out the rest.
Where it lands — The Qur'an's decree comforts and is repaid, and its straying begins with a person's own turning away. In the Kaushitaki, as the commentators read it, even the sin is a sentence for a forgotten past.
Shankara, commentary on Brahma Sutra 2.1.35 — Sacred Books of the East 34, pp. 359-360
“But—an objection is raised—the passage, 'Being only this was in the beginning, one, without a second,' affirms that before the creation there was no distinction and consequently no merit on account of which the creation might have become unequal. And if we assume the Lord to have been guided in his dispensations by the actions of living beings subsequent to the creation, we involve ourselves in the circular reasoning that work depends on diversity of condition of life, and diversity of condition again on work. The Lord may be considered as acting with regard to religious merit after distinction had once arisen; but as before that the cause of inequality, viz. merit, did not exist, it follows that the first creation must have been free from inequalities. This objection we meet by the remark, that the transmigratory world is without beginning.—The objection would be valid if the world had a beginning; but as it is without beginning, merit and inequality are, like seed and sprout, caused as well as causes, and there is therefore no logical objection to their operation.”
Cited for
Shankara answered this long ago. The world of rebirth has no beginning, so merit and inequality are "like seed and sprout, caused as well as causes". Every explanation has to stop somewhere, and a series with no first member is no contradiction.
The response
Shankara states the difficulty himself: "work depends on diversity of condition of life, and diversity of condition again on work". His answer makes the circle endless; it does not break it. Each birth is explained by an earlier one, for ever. So the chain never explains why there is suffering at all, or why one soul's chain runs through blindness and another's through ease. The commentators add that previous merit or demerit "determines the specific quality of the actions which he performs in his present existence". Then every deed is shaped by an earlier sentence, with no first act done freely by a soul with a clean record. So "deserved" has nothing to stand on. The objection is not that an endless series is impossible, nor does it rest on the universe having a beginning in time. It is that an endless chain of sentences never contains the free act that would make any of them just. The Qur'an's explanation stops at a wise and just God (﷾), not at a blind series. He "created Death and Life, that He may try which of you is best in deed", and He repays the patient "without measure".
Where it lands — A beginningless chain moves the question back for ever. It never supplies the first free act that makes a sentence deserved.
Shankara, commentary on Brahma Sutra 2.3.42 — Sacred Books of the East 38, p. 60
“By no means, we reply; for although the activity of the soul is not independent, yet the soul does act. The Lord indeed causes it to act, but it acts itself. Moreover, the Lord in causing it to act now has regard to its former efforts, and he caused it to act in a former existence, having regard to its efforts previous to that existence; a regressus against which, considering the eternity of the samsâra, no objections can be raised.”
Cited for
Every soul acts freely. Shankara says: "The Lord indeed causes it to act, but it acts itself." A criminal with a record still commits his next crime freely, and deserves its sentence. No first act is needed: each birth answers a free act in the life before.
The response
Shankara's full passage says more. The soul's activity "is not independent". The Lord, in causing it to act now, "has regard to its former efforts". He caused those "having regard to its efforts previous to that existence". Shankara calls this "a regressus". So every effort is shaped by the requital of an earlier effort, back without end. A criminal's record began with a first crime, done by a man who had none. Here there is no such crime and no such man. Each soul enters every life already bent by sentences it cannot remember. The Qur'an too says, "ye shall not will except as Allah wills", so the question is not whether God (﷾) stands behind every act. It is whether each act is already the requital of an earlier one. In Islam every child starts on the fitra, whole, and his first free acts are his own. God (﷾) judges him by them, after a warning, with the record before him.
Where it lands — Shankara's "it acts itself" comes with "a regressus": each effort is moved with regard to an earlier one, back without end. The chain still has no first free act.
Milindapanha 2.2.6 — The Questions of King Milinda, book II, chapter 2, question 6
“Just so, great king, deeds good or evil are done by this name-and-form and another is reborn. But that other is not thereby released from its deeds (its Karma).”
Cited for
Buddhists teach no self that passes from life to life. The one reborn is "neither the same nor another", yet he is not freed from the deeds. A man who steals mangoes grown from another's mangoes is still a thief. And karma is intention: "It is intention that I call deeds." An accident makes no karma.
The response
The mango thief is guilty because he himself took the mangoes. The owner can bring him before the king and charge him. The illustration borrows a court with a charge and a thief who knows what he did, and rebirth has neither. If the one reborn is "neither the same nor another", then the one who suffers is not simply the one who sinned. That is the injustice this page describes. Intention explains why a deed is good or bad. It does not explain why this intention should become this body, and in this measure. The Buddha called the results of deeds one of four things that are "unthinkable". In Islam each soul answers for its own intentions, in its own life, and reads its own record.
Where it lands — If the reborn is neither the same nor another, no one can show that he did the deeds he bears. A karma whose results are "unthinkable" is a sentence no one can read.
Uttaradhyayana Sutra 13.23 — lecture 13 (Citra and Sambhuta), verse 23
“Neither his kinsmen, nor his friends, nor his sons, nor his relations will share his suffering, he alone has to bear it; for the Karman follows the doer.”
Cited for
Jains need no Lord and no judge. Karma binds the soul through its own passions. Each kind bears its own fruit: pain or pleasure, the length of life, the family one is born into. No one else can carry it: "the Karman follows the doer". And the soul frees itself by right knowledge, faith, conduct and austerities.
The response
The Jain verse and the Qur'an agree on one thing: no one can carry another's burden. But for that to be justice, the doer must know his deed. The Uttaradhyayana compares karma to a burglar crushed in the breach he dug himself. That burglar knows the wall he broke. A child born blind knows of no breach, and no one can show him one. If each kind of karma bears its fruit by its own nature, karma is a mechanism, and a mechanism is neither just nor unjust. The same scripture speaks of misery "which arises since time without beginning". It also counts among the eight a karma that leads to delusion. So the passions that bind the soul were stirred by karma bound before, and no first free act began the chain. Islam also calls each soul to right belief and right conduct. But it starts each soul clean, in one life, and God (﷾) shows it the record.
Where it lands — Jain karma keeps each soul to its own deeds, but it shows none of them, and it has no first free act. A measure with no judge is a mechanism, not justice.
Milindapanha 3.4.2 — The Questions of King Milinda, book III, chapter 4, question 2
“The king said: 'Why is it, Nâgasena, that all men are not alike, but some are short-lived and some long-lived, some sickly and some healthy, some ugly and some beautiful, some without influence and some of great power, some poor and some wealthy, some low born and some high born, some stupid and some wise?' The Elder replied: 'Why is it that all vegetables are not alike, but some sour, and some salt, and some pungent, and some acid, and some astringent, and some sweet?' 'I fancy, Sir, it is because they come from different kinds of seeds.' 'And just so, great king, are the differences you have mentioned among men to be explained. For it has been said by the Blessed One: "Beings, O brahmin, have each their own Karma, are inheritors of Karma, belong to the tribe of their Karma, are relatives by Karma, have each their Karma as their protecting overlord. It is Karma that divides them up into low and high and the like divisions."'”
Cited for
Buddhists need no Lord. Karma works by itself, as seeds decide the taste of the plants that grow from them. "It is Karma that divides them up into low and high." And not all suffering is karma. Objections about a Lord's judgement do not touch us.
The response
Then karma is either a judge or a process. If it is a process, like seeds growing after their kind, it is not justice at all. A sour seed does not deserve its sourness. A law that knows nothing of right and wrong can be neither just nor unjust. If it matches each birth to moral desert, it must weigh intention and repentance, and fit the body to the guilt. That is a judge's work. Shankara himself argued that the unseen after-effect of a deed "cannot act unless moved by some intelligent being". The objections from memory, from the endless chain and from the missing first free act need no Lord. They apply wherever karma is said to divide beings into low and high. The Milindapanha also says that much suffering comes from other causes than karma. Then karma does not explain those sufferings at all. The Milindapanha itself says that no one without a Buddha's insight can know how far karma reaches. The record is closed to the one who suffers.
Where it lands — Karma without a Lord is either a blind process, and so not justice, or a judgement with no judge. Islam names the Judge, shows the record, and repays every hardship.
Perspectives
Karma as the Lord's requital (Vedanta)
Karma is not chance. The all-knowing Lord gives each creature the fruit its own deeds deserve, as the rain makes each seed grow after its kind. The inequality of creatures is not the Lord's fault but the fruit of their merit and demerit. The chain of lives has no beginning, so every condition was earned by earlier deeds, like seed and sprout. The self that suffers is the same eternal self that acted; only the body is new. The Lord causes it to act, but it acts itself. The chain ends in release, through knowledge and the Lord's grace.
Shankara and Ramanuja on the Brahma Sutra; the Upanishads, the Gita and Manu
The Brahma Sutra says the fruit of works comes from the Lord. Shankara and Ramanuja explain that deeds pass away when done, so they cannot bring their own results.
Rebuttal
Grant that a deed passes away and cannot bring its own result. Then the Lord's requital is a sentence, and a sentence needs a charge and a record. In Islam each person is told: "Read thine (own) record".
The Lord cannot be blamed for the inequality of creatures, because he looks at their good and bad deeds. He is like rain, which falls on all seeds alike.
Rebuttal
Grant that rain falls on all seeds alike and each grows after its kind. But a child is not a seed. The texts call his birth a requital for deeds, and no deed of his is named or shown.
The world of rebirth has no beginning. So good deeds and inequality are like seed and sprout: each is caused by the other, and each causes the other.
Rebuttal
Grant that a series with no start is not impossible. But an endless chain of sentences never contains the first free act that would make any of them deserved.
The Lord causes the soul to act with regard to its former efforts, but the soul acts itself.
Rebuttal
Shankara adds that the Lord, in causing the soul to act now, "has regard to its former efforts". So it goes back for ever, "a regressus". Each act answers an earlier one, and no first free act is ever reached. In Islam each child starts on the fitra, and his first free acts are his own.
The Chandogya Upanishad and the Gita teach that good and evil conduct lead to good and evil births.
Rebuttal
Grant that these texts say it. They do not tell the one born which deed earned his birth, and they show him nothing. A sentence no one can read cannot be tested or answered.
The embodied self casts off old bodies and takes new ones, as a man changes his clothes.
Rebuttal
The self carries no memory of the past life, and there is no record anyone can check. So nothing shows that this child did that deed. The Qur'an holds each soul to its own deeds, in its own life. And every child is born on the fitra, the pure nature God (﷾) gave it.
The Lord gives release. In the Gita he says, "I will release you from all sins", and Ramanuja speaks of Release bestowed by the Lord.
Rebuttal
Grant that the Lord can forgive. The Qur'an says so too: "Despair not of the Mercy of Allah". But grace cannot show that a sentence was deserved. In Islam the call to repent comes in this one life, to a person who knows what he turns from.
Deeds bear their own fruit (Mimamsa)
The deed itself brings its fruit. Before it passes away it leaves an unseen after-effect, apurva, which yields the result later. Scripture commands sacrifice for a reward, and the command would be useless if the deed did not bring its own fruit. A Lord who dealt out the results would be partial and cruel.
Jaimini, as the Brahma Sutra and Shankara report his view
The Brahma Sutra reports Jaimini's view that religious merit brings about the fruits of actions.
Rebuttal
Grant that Jaimini wanted no Lord. Then karma is a blind process, neither just nor unjust. Shankara himself said that the unseen after-effect "cannot act unless moved by some intelligent being".
On this view the result springs from the deed only, through the unseen apurva. A Lord who gave out the results would be taxed with partiality and cruelty.
Rebuttal
Grant the worry. Islam answers it: unequal gifts are tests, not verdicts (6:165), and every hardship is seen and repaid. "Allah is never unjust in the least degree" (4:40), and He shows each person his own record. A deed's fruit with no judge is a mechanism, not justice.
Karma without a Lord (Buddhist)
Beings are the heirs of their own deeds, and a deed is an intention. No god hands out rewards and punishments. Karma divides beings into high and low, as the seed decides the taste of the plant. Not all suffering comes from karma, and only a Buddha can see how far karma reaches. No unchanging self passes from life to life. The one who is born again is neither the same person nor someone else.
The Milindapanha and the Pali discourses
Asked why men are born unequal, Nagasena answers that plants differ because their seeds differ. He quotes the Buddha: it is karma that divides beings into low and high.
Rebuttal
Grant that seeds decide the taste of a plant. But a sour seed does not deserve its sourness. If karma is only a process like this, it is not justice. If it fits each birth to guilt, it needs a judge.
The Buddha calls intention itself the deed.
Rebuttal
Grant that intention makes a deed good or bad. It does not explain how a cruel intention becomes a blind eye or a short life, in fitting measure. That needs a scale kept by a judge.
Much suffering comes from causes other than karma. And no one without a Buddha's insight can tell how far karma reaches.
Rebuttal
Grant that not all suffering is karma. But where it is, "no one without a Buddha's insight can fix the extent" of it. So no sufferer can know whether he is paying for a deed. Islam tells every believer who suffers the same thing: it wipes away sins, and it is repaid.
The one reborn is neither the same nor another, yet he is not released from the deeds.
Rebuttal
If the one reborn is "neither the same nor another", then the one who suffers is not simply the one who did the deed. Nothing shows he must answer for it.
Karma without a Lord (Jain)
The soul is bound by eight kinds of karma, and bound by them it turns round and round in the circle of births. Karma decides pain and pleasure, the length of life and the family one is born into. No maker governs the world. Each soul reaps only its own deeds, and no one can share them: the karma follows the doer. Right knowledge, faith, conduct and austerities free the soul from misery that has no beginning.
The Uttaradhyayana Sutra of the Jain canon
The soul is bound by eight kinds of karma, which turn it round in the circle of births. They decide pain and pleasure, the length of life and the family line.
Rebuttal
Grant the eight kinds of karma. Karma that fixes pain, life and family by its own nature is a mechanism. A mechanism is neither just nor unjust, and it shows the soul none of its deeds.
No one shares another's suffering, because karma follows the one who did the deed. No one escapes the result of his own actions.
Rebuttal
Islam agrees that no one carries another's burden. But justice needs the doer to be shown his deed. The burglar in the Jain verse knows the wall he broke; a child born blind knows of no breach.
A Jain hymn denies any maker acting by his own free will. A Jain verse calls it bondage when the soul takes on bodies suited to its past actions.
Rebuttal
Grant that this hymn denies a maker. Then no one judges, and the soul "assumes bodies suitable to its past actions" by a law, not by a hearing. Islam names the Judge, who shows each soul its record.
Right knowledge, faith, conduct and hard self-denial are the road to lasting happiness. They lead out of a misery that has gone on since time without beginning.
Rebuttal
Islam also calls each soul to right belief and right conduct. But it starts every soul clean, in one life, and God (﷾) shows it the record. In the Jain verse the misery has no beginning, so no first free act began it.
The Islamic perspective
Every person lives one life, is born pure, and is judged once, by God (﷾), with his own record in front of him. No one carries another's guilt. And no one is punished before a warning has reached him. Hardship and disability are tests. God (﷾) honours them and repays them. They are never a sentence for a past no one remembers.
On the Day of Judgement each person reads his own record, which leaves out nothing. And his own body bears witness.
No soul bears the burden of another. God (﷾) punishes no one until a messenger has warned him, so that no one has a plea against Him.
The Qur'an says there is no fault in the blind, the lame or the sick. It rebuked the Prophet (ﷺ) for frowning at a blind man.
The Prophet (ﷺ) promised Paradise to the believer who loses his sight and is patient. He promised it too to a woman with epilepsy who chose to be patient.
Every child is born upon the fitra, and children who die are in Paradise. In one report the children of idolaters are there too.
Differences between people are tests, and life itself was created to try who is best in deed.
Some deeds no one remembers, no record shows, and no first free act began. A sentence for such deeds is not justice.