Let's say that a Hindu has done a lot of good deeds, and barely any bad deeds after the ages of puberty, has he a chance of attaining paradise? (The hindu in particular has not committed any kufr, but has committed shirk.)
There is tradition in Islam that a quarter of a million prophets were sent to all the peoples of mankind before the final revelation of the Prophet (pbuh).
According to Zamakshari (12th century AD) the Qu'ran bears witness to the transcendental unity of all the revealed religions based upon the belief upon on One God, despite the differences between them 'in statutes and practises enjoined for the benefit of the various communities in accordance with their condition.'
There are, however, many believers within the community of Islam, as in other communities, who appear to derive profound satisfaction from the notion that they alone are on the right track and everyone else is astray. The conviction that theirs is the only true Faith, nourished by the human tendency to exclusiveness, finds support in the fact that the different religions must neccessarily have firm outlines if they are to be clearly to be distinguished.
I might add, this 'tendency to exclusiveness' is reflected also in the way that many men, believe that ideas and words are solely their possession and not to be shared; even when the words themselves, like words must, be shared; and likewise with ideas; this only goes to prove Eaton's argument that man is a possessive and grasping creature.
Given Eaton's argument and my own above, a Hindu, in their own way, may attain Jannat for Allah knows best.
One additional point here that ought to be taken into account is that the term 'Hindu' is a constructed term and not organic to India. For according to Bhimrao Ambedkar, the Dalit lawyer, convert to Buddhism and who helped draw up the constitution of India has said:
The first and foremost thing that must be recognised is that Hindu society is a myth. The name Hindu is itself a foreign name. It was given by the Mohommedans [sic] to the natives living east of the river Indus for the purposes of distinguishing themselves.
As Muslims we can see here directly what he means, since as Muslims we can see that 'Mohommedans' itself is not a native term to Islam. We call ourselves Muslims and not Mohommedans. The latter term was constructed by Christians modelled on how they named their own religion after its founder. Likewise, too, with Hindu and Hinduism ...
Finally, there is Gil Eaton says in his book, Islam and the Destiny of Man:
According to the great mujahid, the Emir Abdu'l-Qadir, 'our God and the God of all the communities opposed to ours are in truth One God ... despite the variety of His Manifestations ... He has manifested Himself to Muhammed's people beyond every form whilst manifesting himself in every form ... To Christians He has manifested Himself in the form of Christ ... and to the worshippers of whatever form it may be ... in the very form of this thing; for no worshipper of a finite object worships it for its own sake. What he worships is the epiphany in this form of the attributes of the true God ... Yet that which all the worshippers worship is one and the same. Their error consists only in the act of determining it in a limitative manner.
He quotes this from Mawqif 236 in the Mawaqif of Abdu'l Qadir (tr. by Chodkiewicz and published by Editions du Seuil, Paris, 1982). He goes on to say:
Abdu'l Qadir fought the Christians who invaded his land, Algeria because he was a Muslim. Exiled to Damascus, he protected the Christians against massacre by taking them into his own home because he understood. Those who would challenge him or accuse him of heresy should be prepared to face his sword and accept death from its blade since small men risk their necks when they challenge great ones.