The enclosed Newsweek article should be of interest to most followers of Islam before they decide to find eternal peace in heaven with 72 'houri' no less, virgins.  From my experience I don't think I've ever met one of these but maybe when I die ....

By the looks of it today's interpretation of the Quran's description of heaven means that heaven certialnly must be full of 'houri' virgins to say the least. I do however have a nagging question that remains unanswered in that the men get the virgins what do the female followers of Islam get?

... just the thought of a suicide bomber arriving at the gates of Heaven and being given 72 raisins, rather than the virgins, makes me wonder what that conversation must be like...

St Peter 'Welcome to Heaven my son ... here's your 72 raisins... '

Bomber 'What 72 raisins?  I was promised 72 'houri' virgins ....'

St Peter 'Well my son this is heaven and we don't believe these enough room here for so many virgins .... besides if they really are 'houri' they they certaily wouldn't be in heaven' ..

Bomber 'What the fuck are you talking about St Peter ... I commit suicide and all I get is some 72 miserable raisins? That isn't right!'

St Peter 'Now there is no need to talk like that this is Paradise and there aren't 72 virgins ....what the hell do you expect you idiot ...'

Anyway ... check out the schlarly article below .... for those who are non-believers

Challenging the Qur’an

A German scholar contends that the Islamic text has been mistranscribed and promises raisins, not virgins

By Stefan Theil
NEWSWEEK INTERNATIONAL

July 28 issue — In a note of encouragement to his fellow hijackers, September 11 ringleader Muhammad Atta cheered their impending “marriage in Paradise” to the 72 wide-eyed virgins the Qur’an promises to the departed faithful. Palestinian newspapers have been known to describe the death of a suicide bomber as a “wedding to the black-eyed in eternal Paradise.” But if a German expert on Middle Eastern languages is correct, these hopes of sexual reward in the afterlife are based on a terrible misunderstanding.

        ARGUING THAT TODAY’S version of the Qur’an has been mistranscribed from the original text, scholar Christoph Luxenberg says that what are described as “houris” with “swelling breasts” refer to nothing more than “white raisins” and “juicy fruits.”
        Luxenberg—a pseudonym—is one of a small but growing group of scholars, most of them working in non-Muslim countries, studying the language and history of the Qur’an. When his new book is published this fall, it’s likely to be the most far-reaching scholarly commentary on the Qur’an’s early genesis, taking this infant discipline far into uncharted—and highly controversial—territory. That’s because Islamic orthodoxy considers the holy book to be the verbatim revelation of Allah, speaking to his prophet, Muhammad, through the Angel Gabriel, in Arabic. Therefore, critical study of God’s undiluted word has been off-limits in much of the Islamic world. (For the same reason, translations of the Qur’an are never considered authentic.) Islamic scholars who have dared ignore this taboo have often found themselves labeled heretics and targeted with death threats and violence. Luxenberg, a professor of Semitic languages at one of Germany’s leading universities, has chosen to remain anonymous because he fears a fatwa by enraged Islamic extremists.

        Luxenberg’s chief hypothesis is that the original language of the Qur’an was not Arabic but something closer to Aramaic. He says the copy of the Qur’an used today is a mistranscription of the original text from Muhammad’s time, which according to Islamic tradition was destroyed by the third caliph, Osman, in the seventh century. But Arabic did not turn up as a written language until 150 years after Muhammad’s death, and most learned Arabs at that time spoke a version of Aramaic. Rereading the Paradise passage in Aramaic, the mysterious houris turn into raisins and fruit—much more common components of the Paradise myth.
        The forthcoming book contains plenty of other bombshells. It claims that the Qur’an’s commandment for women to cover themselves is based on a similar misreading; in Sura 24, the verse that calls for women to “snap their scarves over their bags” becomes in Aramaic “snap their belts around their waists.” Even more explosive are readings that strengthen scholars’ views that the Qur’an had Christian origins. Sura 33 calls Muhammad the “seal of the prophets,” taken to mean the final and ultimate prophet of God. But an Aramaic reading, says Luxenberg, turns Muhammad into a “witness of the prophets”—i.e., someone who bears witness to the established Judeo-Christian texts. The Qur’an, in Arabic, talks about the “revelation” of Allah, but in Aramaic that term turns into “teaching” of the ancient Scriptures. The original Qur’an, Luxenberg contends, was in fact a Christian liturgical document—before an expanding Arab empire turned Muhammad’s teachings into the basis for its new religion long after the Prophet’s death.
        Such interpretations will undoubtedly draw the ire of many Muslims—and not just extremists. After all, revisionist scholars have been persecuted for much less; in 2001, Egypt’s Constitutional Court confirmed the “apostasy” of former University of Cairo scholar Nasr Hamid Abu-Zayd, for considering the Qur’an a document written by humans.
        Still, Luxenberg may be ushering in a whole new era of Qur’anic study. “Luxenberg’s findings are very relevant and convincing,” says Mondher Sfar, a Tunisian specialist on the historic origins of the Qur’an in exile in Paris. “They make possible a new interpretation of the Qur’an.” In the West, questioning the literal veracity of the Bible was a crucial step in breaking the church’s grip on power—and in developing a modern, secular society. That experience, as much as the questioning itself, is no doubt what concerns conservative Muslims as they struggle over the meaning and influence of Islam in the 21st century. But if Luxenberg’s work is any indication, the questioning is just getting underway.