I have only read about a third of the Qu’ran so far, but paradise sounds like a lovely place and fittingly describes an oasis…a shady garden with flowing streams,raised couches and golden goblets…the only reference I have seen so far to any “virgins” were described as “fitting nubile companions”. Their sex was not stated. I find the Qur’an to be much more coherent than the Bible. I see no reason to think the God of the Quran is not the same God as the Christian God except that the Quran denies the deity of Jesus and denies the trinity, though it talks much about Jesus and Mary too. The word Islam means “belief in one God” and the message is about abolishing polytheism which was rampant among the tribes in the seventh century when the Qu’ran was written. This is why it emphatically states “there shall be no partners with God”. Interestingly it is written in the first person; the “voice” of God. I think Muslim fundamentalists are the equal of Christian fundamentalists, emotionally unbalanced and uninformed More people should read the Qu’ran and see for themselves what is ACTUALLY in it. there is SO MUCH misunderstanding, especially when so many people get all their info from youtube these days.
Did you have a point?
Oh, and the word “Islam” means “submission”. The word for “belief in one God” is “monotheism”.
Do you have a link to the relevant column?
I don’t have a cite for this, as I heard it on a radio show years ago, but the “fitting nubile companions” translate from a word with the approximate translation of “plumpers.” The linguist being interviewed thought it might refer to grapes. What a burn, for some unemployable and unmarriageable kid-turned-martyr to endure privation and death, show up in the afterlife and be handed a plate of freakin’ grapes!
Or, if you want to stay within the religion, Tawhīd.
It’s pretty ridiculous that the whole point of this article is to clarify what the Qu’ran says really says about the afterlife, but then refers to Christian heaven as “angels with harps.”
Yep, that’s everything you need to know about linguists. 
I always thought “Islam” meant, or has the root word of “peace”, as “salaam” (peace) seems closely related.
Umm…no. Not remotely.
I can assure you that the word islam does NOT mean, “belief in one god”. Yes, Islam is a monotheistic religion, but that AIN’T what the word means.
It is a noun form of the Arabic verb root s-l-m, which carries the meaning of, “to surrender” or loosely, “to bow before” or perhaps “to worship”.
Interestingly, the same root also carries the idea of “peace”. The Arabic word for peace is salaam, a variant of the same lexeme: s-l-m.
Even more interestingly, Hebrew, a sister Semitic language of Arabic, has the same lexeme for “peace”, only the initial sibilant is palatized: sh-l-m, as in shalom.
Hey, I’M a linguist! Take that back!
OK, OK, I’m a trained linguist, but I don’t do research or even work in the field. I’m actually a librarian.
Yep. Same verbal root.* Apparently to the Arab mind, the ideas of “peace” and “surrender” are somewhat related. Explains a lot of their performance in the Six-Day and Yom Kippur Wars, don’t it! 
*In Arabic, the verbal root is called, maSdar. It usually consists of three letters, but can sometimes be only two, or as many as four or even five (usually only in loan words. (The maSdar of the verb, “to televise”, an Anglicism, is t-l-f-z.)
Some examples:
k-t-b : to read. Related words: kitaab [book], mukaatib [writer], maktaba [library]
d-r-s : to study, to learn. (A cognate is Hebrew d-r-sh, whence the term midrash.) Related words: daras [lesson], mudarris [teacher], madrasa [school]
q-r-a : to read, recite. Related words: qur’aan (Qur’aan, Koran) [readings, recitations]
j-h-d : to fight, to struggle, to wage war (esp. in a religious context). Related words: jihaad [struggle], mujaahid [holy fighter, s.], mujaahidiin [holy fighters, pl.]
Notice the similarities between mukaatib, mudaaris, and mujaahid? They’re all people who carry out the action of the verb. So it’s really easy in Arabic to generate nouns associated with the maSdar: Just apply a specific set of prefixes, suffixes, and vowel infixes. In this case: mu--aa--i-* . Cool, huh? 
I’ve studied Arabic for about 10 years now. It’s complicated, but fun.
Oops! The verb k-t-b means “to write”, not “to read”. Sorry!
Can you tell that this stuff fascinates me? It’s why I went into linguistics.
I’ve explained about the Arabic maSdar, and how pretty much every word contains a lexical skeleton of its conceptual root.
The Arabic word for “one” is waaHid. So the noun tawHiid clearly conveys an idea of singularity.
Nifty, huh? Can I get an “Amen!” ?
Anyone?
Don’t leave me hangin’…
Buehler? Buehler? …
The specific part about the “72 virgins” is taken from a ḥadīth, not from the Qur’ān. (Aside: Please, everyone, note the position of the apostrophe in the word Qur’ān, between the r and the ā; it transliterates a specific consonantal sound in Arabic, and is not just sprinkled into text at random like little candies on ice cream.)
A common misconception about the textual sources of Islam, which I see repeated constantly even by those who pretend to knowledge of the subject, is that everything in the religion is spelled out in the Qur’ān. It certainly is not. If everything that people attribute to the Qur’ān were really in there, it would be the size of the friggin Encyclopædia Britannica instead of the modest-sized volume it actually is. The vast bulk of Islamic source material comes from the many ḥadīth collections, which take up several library shelves. The ḥadīths are far more elaborate and detailed.
The distinction is significant, because while no Muslims doubt the authenticity of the Qur’ān in the slightest, the authenticity of the ḥadīths has been challenged again and again. It’s well known that during the first 2 centuries after the Hijrah, phony ḥadīths were fabricated wholesale, to bolster various partisan and sectarian agendas. It is said that al-Bukhārī, the most renowned of all the ḥadīth scholars, evaluated about 100,000 ḥadīths and rejected over 97% of them. While the ones that al-Bukhārī authenticated are widely accepted and have formed the second most important source of Islamic law, lots of critics have found serious problems with even those. To the point that there have been “Qur’ān-only” movements, especially in recent years, that advocate junking all the ḥadīths altogether, because the entire corpus just gets so unreliable and has been so abused by various partisan and sectarian agendas.
So it isn’t a simple issue at all.
Islamic Karaites! Who knew?
Correct Johanna.
Hadith are totally unreliable and actually in places contradict the Quran itself.