If it is asked, “If a person is not punished for these deeds, what does it mean to call them reprehensible?” the answer is that their reprehensibility has two implications.

First, such conduct is a cause of punishment, but punishment depends on a condition: the establishment of proof. Allah Most High says:

“You were on the brink of a pit of Fire, and He saved you from it.”

Had He not saved them, they would have fallen. If someone standing at the edge perishes, his destruction depends on his falling, unlike someone who moves away from the edge and thus distances himself from destruction. Those who committed these deeds were therefore close to destruction and punishment.

Second, they are blameworthy, deficient, and flawed. Their rank is inevitably lowered by this. Even supposing they are not subjected to torment, they do not deserve the honour and reward that someone free of these faults deserves. This is punishment through deprivation of good, which is one of the two kinds of punishment. Although anyone who neglects a recommended act also misses out on its good, there is a difference between missing out on something one has not acquired and having what one already possesses diminished. This discussion applies generally to sins for which a person is not punished.

As for those to whom no messenger was sent in this world, reports have been transmitted stating that a messenger will be sent to them on the gathering grounds on the Day of Resurrection, as has been explained at length elsewhere.