If they believe that God (who instated their religious doctrine) is just, then, by implication, they think it is just and look forward to everything God did, does, or will do, including burning "infidels" in hell forever. If they hope that God's justice be done, and God's justice includes burning "infidels" in hell forever, then they hope that those "infidels" will burn in hell forever.
Maybe he wasn't a particularly good or consistent member of his religion. It seems common.The only muslim person I have known who was very serious about following his religion acted in ways towards me which appeared to me mostly genuinely friendly, helpful and so on. He was a colleague in my previous job. I can't imagine him wishing eternal suffering upon me.
I don't know about "most."So, then, for example, by some less superficial criteria you would probably disagree that most Burmese are buddhists?
Then they say so.What if they say they are buddhists?
It can be.Is this a superficial criterion - self-identification as adherent to a certain religion?
My point is that if we casually and superficially, like journalists and sociologists, assign religious identity to ourselves and others, then the concept of religious identity becomes stretched to the point where it can include anything and everything and ceases to be a meaningful concept because it's just a word that doesn't denote anything specific.