According to some radical Islamists, men who die fighting a jihad get
70 virgins to have sex with once they get to heaven.  My question is,
according to the Koran, what do female martyrs get?  Do they get male
virgins?   Also after the male martyrs deflower the virgins what
happens to the women?  Do they get to say "no" if they don't want to
have sex after the first time?  Do they form the guy's harem?  If they
end up in the guy's harem, do they ever get to leave?  What if the guy
can't satisfy 70 women?  What if they start nagging him about his
performance?  Is it still paradise?

I can't answer all of your questions, but this might interest you:

"For many Muslims, heaven is a place of milk and wine rivers and honey
lakes, where the martyr with the first drop of blood will see Allah?s
face, be joined by 70 chosen relatives and have the sins erased.
Female martyrs are promised to dwell forever alongside the husband or
fiancé they have left behind, plus the weight of earthly rules
(including Islamic law) and responsibilities will no longer hang upon
them like millstones in the afterlife (If the ?martyr? is a man, he
will enjoy also the services of 72 black-eyed virgins."

http://www.cesnur.org/2005/pa_alvanou.htm#_ftn31

My personal view is that before I became a martyr I'd want at least
half of those virgins here on earth as a down payment.

The exact description of heaven is NOT in the Koran. Only bits and
pieces are described of what the reward will be. So after the male
martyrs deflower the virgins, the fate of the virgins then is
something far in the future that a true muslim should not concern
him/herself with.

As to question if the virgins have a choice or if they ever get to
leave, the question is pretty much irrelevant considering the expected
behaviour of beings in the afterlife. Beings will be already put in
situations they agree with. Heaven is a place where all wishes are
fullfilled and all beings are satisfied, so there wouldn't arise a
situation where anybody would refuse anything, since all-knowledgeable
God would know the inner secrets and wishes of each being and would
not place the being in any situation he/she would not appreciate.

As to the last few questions, you have to understand the basic concept
of Heaven as described in the Koran. Heaven is a place where
"perfection" is achieved. Nothing could possibly go wrong. Everyone
admitted to heaven is satisfied to the maximum. They couldn't possibly
wish for more. Males/Females get everything they could wish for.
Heaven is something which we cannot imagine while on earth, we can
just have a few pointers to to grasp how much better it is than the
world we live in today.

Heaven being that kind of place where everything is and remains
perfect, maybe they stay virgins  (without the help of any dubious
medical practice).
Not being a female, I can only ask those who are:  "Would 70 virgin
men be a girl's idea of heaven?

I have noticed an important distinction between the Muslim eternity
and the Christian eternity.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Muslim heaven seems to be described
as a place of eternal fulfillment for any person who enters.  That
person can have all of his or her wishes and desires fulfilled.  Some
even claim the idea of the seventy virgins (see above).  Nonetheless,
to quote amdinside, "Heaven is a place where all wishes are fulfilled
and all beings are satisfied, so there wouldn't arise a situation
where anybody would refuse anything, since all-knowledgeable God would
know the inner secrets and wishes of each being and would not place
the being in any situation he/she would not appreciate...  Heaven is a
place where 'perfection' is achieved. Nothing could possibly go wrong.
Everyone admitted to heaven is satisfied to the maximum. They couldn't
possibly wish for more. Males/Females get everything they could wish
for. Heaven is something which we cannot imagine while on earth, we
can just have a few pointers to grasp how much better it is than the
world we live in today."

The Christian place of eternal rest is being created, not yet finished
(Isaiah 65:17; Isaiah 66:22; 2 Peter 3:13).  Jesus said that he was
going to prepare a place with many rooms (John 14:2).  The best
biblical description is found in Revelation 21.  The passage describes
?heaven? as being situated on a high mountain, filled with the glory
of God and will sparkle like a precious gem, crystal clear like
jasper. Its walls will be broad and high, with twelve gates guarded by
twelve angels. And the names of the twelve tribes of Israel will be
written on the gates. There will be three gates on each side--east,
north, south, and west. The wall of the city will have twelve
foundation stones, and on them will be written the names of the twelve
apostles of the Lamb (Christ). It will be a in the form of a cube,
with its length and width and height to be each 1,400 miles and the
wall will be 216 feet thick, according to human standards.  The wall
will be made of jasper, and the city of pure gold, as clear as glass. 
The wall of the city will be built on foundation stones inlaid with
twelve gems: the first jasper, the second sapphire, the third agate,
the fourth emerald, the fifth onyx, the sixth carnelian, the seventh
chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase,
the eleventh jacinth, the twelfth amethyst. The twelve gates will be
made of pearls--each gate from a single pearl. And the main street
will be pure gold, as clear as glass.  There will be no temple in the
city, for the Lord God Almighty and Christ will be its temple. And the
city will have no need of sun or moon, for the glory of God will
illuminate the city, and the Lamb will be its light.

According to Revelation 21, the Christian "heaven" is reserved only
for those whose name is written in the Lamb?s (Christ) Book of Life. 
It will be the new home of God among his people.  It will be a place
of where He will remove all of his people?s sorrows, and there will be
no more death or sorrow or crying or pain. For the old world and its
evils will be gone forever.  But cowards who turn away from God, and
unbelievers, and the corrupt, and murderers, and the immoral, and
those who practice witchcraft, and idol worshipers, and all
liars--their doom is in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur
(commonly referred to as "Hell").

This leads me to a question ? what happens to those who don?t follow
the Muslim religion?  Is there an equivalent of a "hell"?  Just
wondering...

a query for Ilmag.ga. What you have described is in the Bible, but is
more a desription of a perfect place, and not necessarily of a
'particular' place. Have you considered the scriptures at Psalm 37; 9,
11, 29 & 34. They all specify that the righteous will inherit the
earth, possess it, reside forever upon it ...AFTER... the wicked ones
are 'cut off', will be no more, and verse 37 says that the righteous
will see it. This is an actual sighting and not just an
'understanding'. Now, is the Bible mistaken or are my quotes
incorrect. It is interesting to note that the explanation by Amdinside
did not specify any scripture from the Koran. Surely a faithful
follower could back up any statements with pertinent scriptures. Also
to keep in mind. Would a singular powerful, and loving, Almighty God
want to be worshipped in multiple ways and with multiple names? And
with his power, would he want his followers to kill in his name? If
God was the boss of a corporation, surely he would want things done
HIS way, not the employees way?? Surely it is up to us to find out
exactly how God wants us to worship him.

Pugwashjw - Psalm 39 is not referring to the current earth, as we know
it today; it is referring to the earth yet to come.  In Revelation
21:1 (NLT), the author states, ?Then I saw a new heaven and a new
earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and
there was no longer any sea.?  The description I gave in the earlier
posting is of the New Jerusalem, which will be on the new earth. 
Psalm 39 is referring to this new earth as the eternal inheritance for
the righteous.

As to the second part (I hope you don?t mind my breaking up your
post!), I don?t know if I am clear as to what you are saying.  God is
referred to by several names in His Word.  God is referred to such
names including, but not limited to God (Elohim ? Genesis 1:1), the
Lord (Jehovah), God our personal source of comfort and provision
(El-shaddai ? Genesis 17:1), I am (Eh-yeh ? Exodus 3:14), the Lord my
provider (Jehovah-jireh ? Genesis 22:14), the Lord who heals
(Jehovah-rophe ? Exodus 15:26), the Lord our banner (Jehovah-nissi ?
Exodus 17:15), the Lord of hosts (Jehovah-sabaoth ? Isaiah 17:45), the
Lord of peace (Jehovah-Shalom ? Judges 6:24), the Lord our
righteousness (Jehovah-tsidkenu ? Jeremiah 23:6), the Lord who makes
you holy (Jehovah-m?kaddesh ? Exodus 31:3), and the Lord who is ever
present (Jehovah-shammah ? Ezekiel 48:35).  In most cases, Jehovah,
being His name, is coupled with revelations of His character and
nature.  Similarly, Jesus was also prophetically named in Isaiah 9:6
as Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of
Peace.  God may be referred to in several ways, but it is apparent
that God certainly does not to be referred to in vain or in disgrace
or have His name misused (Exodus 20:7; Deuteronomy 5:11).

As to the third part, you are correct, it is up to us to find out how
God wants us to worship Him, but He has revealed that to us in His
Word (John 4:24).  The Psalms are also filled with examples of worship
that are pleasing to God.  There is not just one act of worship that
is pleasing to God, but there is only one posture of our heart, soul,
mind, and strength that is.  That posture is being submitted to the
Spirit and Truth of God.

ilmag

Ilmag,Rev 1:1 right from the start, at its very begining reminds us
that God through Jesus via his angels presented a revelation "IN
SIGNS" to John.  One shouldn't be expecting a literal new earth, for
this one has been made perfect. Finaly, it's not the imperfection of
the earth that spoils the life on it, but the 'wicked ones'. And what
about the sea that is not to be - is THAT a literal one? Let the Bible
answer that: "But the wicked are like the sea that is being tossed,
when it is unable to calm down, the waters of which keep tossing up
seaweed and mire." Now you see what sea will dry out in the New World.
The sea of the wicked ones. Wouldn't you expect that!? Symbols is the
word!
The same goes to New Jerusalem; New Jerusalem is heavenly, not
earthly, for it comes down ?out of heaven from God.? (Re 21:10) So
this city is not one erected by men and consisting of literal streets
and buildings. That the New Jerusalem is indeed a heavenly city is
further supported by the vision of her that John beheld. Only a
symbolic city could have the dimensions and splendor of New Jerusalem.
Its base was foursquare, about 555 km (345 mi) on each side, or about
2,220 km (1,379 mi) completely around, that is, 12,000 furlongs. Being
a cube, the city was also as high as it was long and wide. No man-made
city could ever reach that far into outer space. Again, as it says in
Rev 1:1: SIGNS!!!

And than, you are confusing the meanings of two words: "TITLE" and "NAME".
I highly doubt that you would consider the titles such as 'mister',
'sir', 'father'(in case you are).... I don't know what
else...'general'? :) as your PERSONAL NAMES!?
The title ?God? is neither personal nor distinctive (one can even make
a god of his belly;-"...and their god is their belly..." Php 3:19).
In the Hebrew Scriptures the same word (´Elohim´) is the plural of
´eloh´ah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (Ge
31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty,
dignity, or excellence. ´Eloˇhim´ is used in the Scriptures with
reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and
plural), and to men! It is applied to Jehovah, the true God, but also
to false gods, such as the Philistine god Dagon (Jg 16:23, 24; 1Sa
5:7) and the Assyrian god Nisroch. (2Ki 19:37) For a Hebrew to tell a
Philistine or an Assyrian that he worshiped ?God [´Elohim´]? would
obviously not have sufficed to identify the Person to whom his worship
went.

The Imperial Bible-Dictionary nicely illustrates the difference
between ´Elohim´ (God) and Jehovah. Of the name Jehovah, it says: ?It
is everywhere a proper name, denoting the personal God and him only;
whereas Elohim partakes more of the character of a common noun,
denoting usually, indeed, but not necessarily nor uniformly, the
Supreme... The Hebrew may say the Elohim, the true God, in opposition
to all false gods; but he never says "THE Jehovah", for Jehovah is the
NAME of the true God only..."
Shaddai means Almighty, El Shaddai means God Almighty. Is that a NAME
for you? And if I translate it to Greek - Pantokrator, is that a THIRD
name? Come on, these are TITLES, not NAMES!!! There are other titles
you did not mention; Paul refered to ?God the Father? but that does
not mean that the true God?s name is ?Father,? for the designation
?father? applies to many:  every human male parent, the Messiah is
given the title ?Eternal Father.? (Isa 9:6) Jesus also called Satan
the ?father? of certain murderous opposers. (Joh 8:44) The term was
also applied to gods of the nations, the Greek god Zeus being
represented as the great father god in Homeric poetry.
That ?God the Father? has a name, one that is distinct from his Son?s
name, is shown in numerous texts. (Mt 28:19; Re 3:12; 14:1) Paul knew
the personal name of God, Jehovah, as found in the creation account in
Genesis, from which Paul quoted in his writings. That name, Jehovah,
distinguishes ?God the Father? (compare Isa 64:8), thereby blocking
any attempt at merging or blending his identity and person with that
of any other to whom the title ?god? or ?father? may be applied.
  
The Christian apostle Paul wrote: ?Is he the God of the Jews only? Is
he not also of people of the nations? Yes, of people of the nations
also.? (Ro 3:29)
Jehovah is not only ?the God of the whole earth? (Isa 54:5) but also
the God of the universe, ?the Maker of heaven and earth.? (Ps 124:8)
Certainly not a nameless god who hides his identity behind a dozen
titles as so many would like him to be.

P.S. I put this pretty clumsy: "One shouldn't be expecting a literal new earth..."
Sure it will be literal - the same planet we are walking on. Nothing
wrong with it - the mass, distance from the sun, composition... It
won't be destroyed just to be rebuilt.
However, the word earth, just like the word heaven is also used
simbolically throughout the Bible, and especially in Revelation. We
can grasp their symbolic meaning from the way they were already once
used in the Bible;
When Jews were returning from the exile in Babylon after it fell, in
539 B.C. to the invading armies of Persian King Cyrus, the words new
heaven and earth were used to denote 1) the new governorship of
Zerubbabel supported by High Priest Joshua and centered at Jerusalem.
2) The restored Jewish remnant made up ?a new earth,? a cleansed
society that submitted to such rulership and helped to reestablish
pure worship in the land.
The symbolism is obvious: the new earth will be made up of people who
gladly submit to the rulership of the new heavenly government.

That has all been very interesting, but not about "Female martyrs in Islam".

I hesitate whether to post it as an answer. However, I discussed this
matter with an expert of Islamic terrorism. He has told me that:

(1) The "70 virgins" story is not "Islamic". It is very much something
developed by these people and has very little to do with the
mainstream conception of paradise in Islam.

(2) More importantly, regarding female suicide bombers : 
- The motives for them to commit the attack are different. More than
not, they are "stray" women, who have been caught doing something
horribly sinful in their society (such as having relations with a man
before the wedding).
- They are promised that the suicide attack would expunge all of their
earthly sins and prevent them of the shameful death awaiting such
stray women in traditional Muslim societies.

So, if your question was serious, and you really wanted to know the
motivation and the arguments used to persuade them, here you go. I'll
be more than happy to post it as an official answer. However, if you
were looking for some tongue in the cheek remarks regarding sexuality
in muslim martyr's heaven (it seems so from your tone), or so, I'll
just stay here in the comments section.

Fruitfly - Is that your "name" or is that a "title" (maybe we its an
"alias")?  If I were to call you an idiot, would I be ascribing a
"name" to you or would I be giving you a "title" (or perhaps an
"alias")?  What if I were to call you a genius?  Does it make a
difference if it is true or not?  What if you answer?  Does that make
a difference?  According to my dictionary, a name is defined as a word
or words by which an entity is designated and distinguished from
others.  So if idiot, or genius, or dude, distinguishes you from
others, then it is a name.  So if I call Jehovah Jireh (God my
provider), does that designate and distinguish him from others?  Is
there another who can truly provide?  Semantics...beautiful...

Also, I didn't see where it said that the revelation that John
received was a "sign."  Revelation 1:1 (NLT) states, "This is a
revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him concerning the events
that will happen soon. An angel was sent to God's servant John so that
John could share the revelation with God's other servants."  More
specifically, it says that it is a revelation, not a sign, of what
will actually happen.  Being that, I'll take it literally (there will
be a new heaven and a new earth), and you can choose to take it how
you will.  It won't change God or His Word.

Your dictionary is right:
"a name is defined as a word or words by which an entity is designated
and DISTINGUISHED from others." So if I say 'captain' and you can
visualize who am I thinking of - than that's his name by which he is
known. If not - and how could you - there are thousands of them - ...
it's just a generic title. I've shown how and why that applies to the
title 'god'.

Right, NLT doesn't render the original Greek word 'sign' there. Nor
does BBE, ALT, EMTV...  When judging a translation, it's irelevant how
widely accepted it is. What matters is how closely it follows the
original. Here's the original text:"...??? ????????..."(from textus
receptus but also Westcot-Hort)
Thayer dictoinary: se?maino? -to give a sign, to signify. From ?????
[se?ma] (a mark; of uncertain derivation). You've just used the word
semantics. It comes from this root. :)
Therefore there are many translations that didn't ommit that important
word: ASV, Darby, DRB, HCSB, King James, LITV, NWT, MKJV, MRC, YLT,
Murdock, Webster... Even  Vulgata renders:"...et significavit..."

But myoarin has the point; this is faaaar off the topic. I'm sorry. I
got carried away.
I'm also sorry if you got angry over somethin I said or the way I said it.

Fruitfly - I am not angry, nor am I easily offended.  However, I do
have much to add to our side topic (as you would expect), but I will
defer my comments as we are off topic.

On topic - Female martyrs die tragic deaths just like male martyrs.

This is an addition to 
Subject: Re: Female martyrs in Islam 
From: pinkfreud-ga on 06 Jul 2005 15:18 PDT  

Being a Martyr is something God really likes, but a really good Muslim
might be able to achieve the status of a martyr too.
With that said, there is a saying that really good Muslim women will
get "something the eyes have never seen nor the ears have ever heard."
That means it is so great that it can't even been described with the
senses (just like how God can't be sensed directly with our senses).
Therfore, a women martyr would be among the really good Muslim women
and get this out of this world gift.
God knows best.