Here’s the header of today’s “Media” section on PuffHo; click to go to the article by Gabriel Arana, “Five ways journalists can avoid Islamophobia in their coverage“:
Arana’s view is that the media in general has “far too often served to spread misinformation and perpetuate prejudice” against Muslims. I’m not so sure that’s true; in fact, the opposite seems to be the case, though of course I read mostly left-wing media. Certainly President Obama has bent over backwards not only to tell Americans not to demonize Muslims (to his credit) but also has pointedly avoided mentioning Islam as a cause of terrorism (not to his credit). And opinion-forming papers like the New York Times and Washington Post almost never implicate religion as a cause of terrorism, and constantly publish editorials telling Americans to avoid “Islamophobia,” which I construe as “demonizing Muslims rather than the tenets of their faith.”
Arana, in fact, is promoting “Islamophilia,” which I take to mean “an unwarranted respect for the tenets of Islam.”
Arana’s advice, then, is mostly to avoid mentioning Islam, be sure to visit a mosque if you’re a journalist (noting that “Islamic leaders across the country have graciously opened their doors to help the public better understand their faith“, although of course they’re going to reassure everyone that Islam is a religion of peace), and be sure to profile only those who whitewash both the nasty tenets of Islam and avoid mentioning the “I word”. Here are three of the five tips (the last is “provide context”:
2. Be Careful Whose Views You Give A Platform To
Among the more harmful misconceptions about the role of media is that it’s our duty to provide “balance” and let the audience decide between opposing points of view. In some instances — say, if lawmakers are debating between a cap-and-trade system and a carbon tax as ways to reduce air pollution — this template for fair coverage makes sense.
But far too often, “balance” in news coverage has meant providing a platform for ideologues to spew racist garbage. Inviting Islamophobic activists like Pamela Geller, whose organization is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, on your network to “balance out” the views of a Muslim scholar is not serving to inform the public. It implicitly communicates that these views should have equal weight, which they shouldn’t, and gives Gellar access to millions of viewers.
Do not even show Pamela Geller! She might corrupt viewers who are unable to think for themselves. Yes, she may be a bigot, but shouldn’t her views about Islam at least be considered, especially in view of Arana’s next piece of advice, which is to show someone about as odious?:
3. Challenge Prejudice And Debunk Outright Lies
The reason it’s so important for journalists to arm themselves with information is not only so they themselves make sure not to perpetuate prejudice, it’s also so they can challenge it when they’re confronted with it.
One of the reasons it’s so compelling to watch religious scholar Reza Aslan parry with pundits and television anchors is that he’s unafraid to identify outright lies and misconception and challenge them with information. For instance, when confronted with the idea that Islam is inherently degrading to women, Aslan points out that Muslim-majority countries have elected female heads of state seven times. The U.S.? Zero.
Yep, trot out the old charlatan Reza Aslan, the American equivalent of Karen Armstrong. For you know he’ll assure you that there is nothing bad about Islam.
But if Aslan’s right, and Muslim-majority countries are so much more congenial to women than, say, the U.S. or Western Europe, ask an American woman if she’d rather live here or in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, or Iraq. Reza Aslan is just as much a whitewasher of Islam as Geller is a blackwasher.
Finally, DO NOT MENTION ISLAM!:
4. Choose Your Words Carefully
When journalists use phrases like “Islamic terrorism,” they are implicitly conflating two concepts. While this term is in common use, it is the duty of those of us in the media to be more precise in our use of language than the general public. We should refer to violent radicals like the ones who carried out the attacks in Paris as what they are: religious extremists.
To that end, some outlets have argued for the use of the Arabic acronym “Daesh” instead of the Islamic State (also called ISIS). The idea is to avoid implying that what the terrorists have created in Syria and Iraq is an actual “state” or actually “Islamic.” Another option is to use a qualifier like the “self-described” Islamic State.
There’s no conflation here: “Islamic terrorism” means terrorism motivated by the tenets of Islam. What’s the conflation? And what advantage does the term “religious extremists” have over that? In fact, they have completely different meanings: “Islamic terrorism” is death and destruction motivated largely by Islam, while “religious extremism” means simply the tails of the distribution of religious belief, such as Christian fundamentalism or violent Islamism. “Terrorism” is not the same as “extremism”: it’s the subset of extremism that kills and injures people.
Although some of Arana’s advice can be useful, in the main his thrust is to portray Islam only in a good light. Behind it is the ardent desire to avoid all criticism of Islam. And again I raise the question: if religions can, as many aver, motivate people to do good things, why can’t they motivate people to do bad things? I’ve never heard a satisfactory answer to that simple query.
That’s just silly. So when someone says “German chocolate,” they are implying being Germanic is equivalent to being chocolaty? As a self-proclaimed reporter (see what I did there?), Ms. Arana should learn how adjectives are used in the English language. As of right now, it doesn’t appear she knows how they modify nouns.
I do agree in part with her criticism of networks that invent a false ‘balance.’ But she’s clearly trying to use this criticism to censor viewpoints she doesn’t agree with. That’s not the solution. The solution is for the media to clearly identify when some second or third (or nth) viewpoint represents a significant pluarity vs. when it doesn’t. It’s okay to do a story on some oddball scientist who has a weird theory or some religious sect that has non-mainstream beliefs. The ‘balance’ complaint is that it is not okay for the media to pass such groups off as mainstream or having equal credibility amongst their peer group(s).
The author of the HuffPo atrticle is actually a “he”…
Not that I am too impressed with the idea, but could the two concepts be two meanings of “Islamic” being conflated?
A number of Western countries, including the US, have taken to calling the Islamic State “Daesh”, which is literally an acronym of the the name of the group in Arabic, but sounds like Arabic words meaning “sower of discord” and “one who crushes underfoot”. These are negative associations, and apparently ISIS hates it, so there’s a bit of namecalling in its usage. I’ve also heard “Daesh” used by Kurds and Arab opponents of the Islamic State.
I am an islamophobe and proud to be so, and phobic to every other religion.
I could only guess that Arana has his set stuck on FOX news channel because that is the only place he can be collecting his conclusions. None of the other major news that we get in the U.S. does any of this and in fact, is generally following his nonsense. Maybe he is just getting too much Donald, in your face news, as that is also about all we get at times. He should point his concern at those he seems to be concerned about.
Ignore or suppress whatever people say that you don’t like. Way to be a good journalist.
This guy Arana gets a few things wrong imo.
Aslan tells outright lies, and misrepresents the truth. He is compelling because he sounds like he knows what he’s talking about. He trumpets Indonesia as a great place for Muslim women for example, where women can even be police officers. That’d be the same Indonesia where women are required to undergo a virginity test before they become police officers.
And Aslan’s characterisation that FGM is just as much a problem in Christian countries is a lie. No Christian religion mandates FGM, but two of the main schools of Islamic thought have issued a fatwa in favour of it, and the other two recommend it.
And DAESH isn’t a way to avoid anything. I always use it as a positive choice. It is just an acronym, meaning the same thing as ISIS, but with anglicized Arabic. However, it sounds very similar to two Arabic words with negative connotations. More importantly, DAESH hates it, and in the region, it is only their enemies that use it. The French government took the official position of using it more than a year ago.
I’ve got more to say as usual, but I’ve already written too much. 🙂
The problem is that no-one in ISIS is likely to read what we write, so their hating it is pretty irrelevant.
On the other hand, using “DAESH” rather than ISIS for a Western audience rather plays into the hands (and indeed the requests) of the #NothingToDoWithIslam apologists. Since we’re speaking English, ISIS is more readily understood than DAESH.
Ideally I’d like the media to base their ‘which acronym’ decision on how natives speakers from the region would translate the title. That’s already subjective, but at least by doing it that way you aren’t explicitly politicizing the decision. Once you start down the road of picking acronyms based on who hates it or how you want outsiders to view the group…well, the road to hell and all…
It’s not my fault ISIS is better understood than DAESH, and I’m going to continue using it on principle. Until this article, I had no idea that there were people who were interpreting it as an avoidance of using the word Islam, although I knew there were many who had it wrong about what it means i.e. they didn’t realize it was an acronym etc.
I wrote a post about my decision to use “DAESH” more than an year ago, where I laid out the reasons for my decision, and what all the acronyms mean. As far as I’m concerned, I’ve done what I think is right, and I’m sticking to it. It’s not my fault other people are using DAESH for ignorant reasons.
In the UK this has become a political issue. Earlier this year 120 MPs wrote to the BBC asking them to use DAESH instead of ISIS since the name: “gives legitimacy to a terrorist group that is not Islamic” and because most Muslims find it “insulting to their peaceful religion”.
To their credit, the BBC refused to change, though it now appends “so called” before “Islamic State” (which is fair enough).
It’s also worth noting Maajid Nawaz’s take on this. “So if I’m speaking Arabic, I’ll use “Daesh”. But if I’m speaking English, I’ll use ISIS”
Nawaz has labelled as the “Voldemort Effect” the attempts to avoid mentioning the Islamic element of ISIS and other terrorism. I’ve no idea about New Zealand, but certainly in the UK the use of Daesh is usually done with that motive.
This is Maajid Nawaz on the issue:
“Non-Arabs telling people to say “Daesh”, instead of ISIS, is just weird & silly. Daesh is merely the *exact* Arabic equivalent to the English acronym ISIS / ISIL. And no, Daesh does not *mean* anything in Arabic. It’s merely the Arabic acronym. If the childish argument is: “but Daesh rhymes with XYZ, or sounds like so and so insult, they hate that, so let’s use it.” Well, ISIS is an Egyptian she-goddess, I know they hate her too (this would be the unforgivable sin of ‘shirk’, or idolatry)! So if I’m speaking Arabic, I’ll use “Daesh”. But if I’m speaking English, I’ll use ISIS (or the more technical ISIL), thanks. Let’s stop trying to be so bloody PC all the time! Sorry but I detest it when people don’t do shit about extremism, yet parade their rebel credentials in my face by saying DA’ESH at me, in an Arabic accent. And they don’t even speak Arabic.”
I completely agree with Nawaz re the Voldemort Effect, and have since he came up with the term. I wrote about the issue (taking the same position) before he came up with the term, and since he did, I always reference him. I have enormous respect for Nawaz, and have followed his work for some time.
I vaguely remember when the use of DAESH became an issue in the UK because Dawkins supported it. I mainly recall that on Twi**er many people had the meaning of it wrong.
In NZ it’s mainly called “so-called Islamic State,” which I’m fine with. Sometimes they leave off the “so-called,” which I don’t like. I’m OK with other people using ISIS/ISIL – I’m not into telling other people what to do, but for myself I use DAESH. Nawaz’s position is more linguistically correct than mine, but I deliberately use it to make a point of using the acronym they like least.
Frankly, I don’t care what you call Islamic State, ISIS, IS, ISIL or DAESH. And I’m with Maajid Nawaz, they probably couldn’t give a rat’s patootie (whatever that is) what any Anglophone calls them.
But I do object to the BBC calling them ‘so-called Islamic State’. When I think of the excellent, brave admirable and ultra-intelligent BBC Middle East correspondent Lyse Doucet having to say that phrase as she wanders around Syria staring at the latest ISIS atrocity, I think she must die a little inside: because she knows that some eejit in Bush House has decided that the phrase ‘Islamic State’ on its own will likely lead to riots in the major conurbations and of course Islam must be a religion of peace, because it’s an…er, religion, and we have a paternalistic duty to protect social cohesion.
Of course, the BBC is editorializing and obscuranting. After all, what is ISIS doing that Mohammed didn’t? As we all know. Nick Cohen makes the great point that the self-censorship on Islam which started on the far left has travelled right into the mainstream. The BBC’s ‘so-called Islamic State’ is an example.
Do the people who want to not use “state” because it is supposedly not a state or “Islamic” because it is supposedly not Islamic also do the same for other places?
E.g., refusing to say “DPRK” or “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” because it isn’t a democracy? Or refusing to say “USSR” (or the like) because it was not terribly socialist – and not at all soviet. (Correct me if I’m wrong, Russian speakers, but “soviet” means something like agricultural council, no?)
Actually I’d say Aslan’s chief asset is good looks. People definitely treat beautiful people differently and he is a gorgeous liar.
Another way he prevaricates about FGM is that it is found among non-Muslims only in Africa and only when in contiguous contact with FGM-practising Muslim populaces. The real smoking gun is that it is only found among Muslims in Asia, stretching all the way to his feminist paradise of Indonesia. In other words the practice followed Islam across the world’s largest land mass.
A question … is this a typo: …”while “religious extremism” means simply the tails of the distribution of religious belief, such as Christian fundamentalism or nonviolent Islamism”? That is, did you really mean to suggest that nonviolent Islamism is an outlier (implying the violent Islamism is not)?
Whoops, a typo. I’ll fix it, thanks.
I construe it the same way, too. It’s a bit of a literal misnomer, but so’s a lot of other terminology we employ regularly.
And the phenomenon is real enough. Give a listen to the effluvium leaking out of The Donald’s pie hole recently.
We should use “Islamophobia” to mean “fear of Islam” and “Muslimophobia” to mean “fear of Muslims”. But the former term is now too entrenched to change.
Over the pond, I think that the term, ‘Islamophobia’ is beginning to lose credibility.
E.g. Owen Jones, fresh-faced Guardian leftie so enamoured of Corbyn’s fundamentals that he actually spoke on the same platform during JC’s Labour leadership election campaign, now doesn’t use the phrase. Summat like ‘anti-Muslim bigotry’ instead: which is fair enough and progress of sorts. (Probably because he has discovered what revolting anti-Semites follow Corbyn).
I think we often underestimate how irritated people get at the euphemistic or politically correct tone of a lot of modern discourse: then again, people get annoyed at the overuse of ‘islamophobic’ and ‘whatever-fascist’ (which, I must admit, I do too often). I’m sufficiently optimistic to think that most morally normal observers see beyond the labelling to the essence. x
Yes, it’s probably on its way to becoming what Fowler called a “durable indefensible.”
Or maybe “sturdy indefensible” is what Fowler called words and phrases that weren’t accurate literally, but were too well entrenched to change.
“We should use “Islamophobia” to mean “fear of Islam” and “Muslimophobia” to mean “fear of Muslims”. But the former term is now too entrenched to change.”
The problem is many of those who use the term don’t believe there is a distinction, and in a sense they have a point. If for example you criticize the KKK can you honestly claim you aren’t implying anything bad about KKK members.
I don’t think there is any meaningful distinction between “Islamophobia” and “Muslimophobia”. Where else does Islam exist other than in the minds of muslims? How does the ideology of Islam manifest itself other than in the words and actions of muslims? I suppose if Islam were an extinct belief system with no living adherents, and we knew of it only through old copies of the Koran, you could argue that it had some purely theoretical,”disembodied” existence. But in that case, there’d be no need to fear any part of it, just as no-one now fears the vanished religion of the Aztecs.
In the world we live in today, I loathe and detest Islam (and yes, to some extent fear it), and I express my antipathy to it by a general suspicion of muslims and a desire to avoid contact with them as far as possible (in practice, there are virtually none where I live so the question of contact is largely academic). Does that make me an Islamophobe? Probably – but I see nothing wrong with the term and I don’t seek to avoid it.
In precisely the same way that, although I have no truck with Christian dogma, I have fellow human feelings for Christians generally (and love and respect for many individually). I certainly have no desire to foreclose them any rights or privileges, or to see any fewer of those rights or privileges extended to them than to my fellow non-believers.
So, too, should it be with regard to Muslims. But not all people agree; some feel a hatred or fear toward Muslims by dint of their religion alone. These are the “Islamophobes” (or “Muslimophobes,” if you will). I’ve come to fear that there is now a rising tide of them among my countrymen.
Like you, I have an intense dislike of Islam. But I don’t have a general suspicion of all muslims. It would be difficult to avoid them, and I don’t wish to. There is one in my bed every night, and opposite me at the breakfast table every morning. This automatic leap from loathing the religion to treating all muslims with suspicion, is what we should be avoiding.
When you use the term “religious extremist” you are implicitly conflating the two terms. You should use “Islamic terrorist” so that you don’t imply that all religious people are extremists.
But wait! You shouldn’t use the term “Islamic terrorist” because using that phrase implicitly links the two terms. You should use what they actually are: religious extremist.
But wait! When you use the term “religious extremist” you are implicitly conflating the two terms. You should……
I think we should have a reduction ad absurdum competition on this point. Come up with your best two word, normal adjective-noun combinations which, if interpreted the Arana way, would imply something really silly. I’ll start off the competition with two:
1. “Pet Shop.” Anyone saying ‘pet shop’ is implicitly conflating pets with shops.
2. “Chicken burrito.” Anyone saying ‘chicken burrito’ is implicitly conflating chickens with burritos.
“Islam is a religion of peace” improperly conflates Islam and peace.
As Islam means “submission” (“surrender,” “subjugation”), as long as one submits, Islam will be a religion of peace, eh?
“The reason it’s so important for journalists to arm themselves with information is not only so they themselves make sure not to perpetuate prejudice, it’s also so they can challenge it when they’re confronted with it.”
Appropriate advice. Perhaps Arana would be interested in arming herself and her fellow journalists with information from this Pew Report:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/pew-report-on-muslim-world-paints-a-distressing-picture/
Once done, perhaps they could then challenge certain rose-tinted prejudices concerning Islam.
Well, that’s the end of reporting of religion in America then. If there rules (advisories?) were actually to be followed, then no newspaper would be able to carry out any interview with any religious leader.
Apart from Saint Bobby.
When journalists use phrases like “Islamic terrorism,” they are implicitly conflating two concepts. While this term is in common use, it is the duty of those of us in the media to be more precise in our use of language than the general public.
I suppose, then, for the same reason, journalists should also avoid phrases like “Western imperialism.” After all, the phrase could be taken to imply either that all people in the West are in favor of imperialism, or that only the West has engaged in imperialism. Those in the media have a duty to be more precise than that with their language, right?
There’s generally no need for the liberal media to give any sort of platform to racist, right-wing trolls. They have nothing of value to contribute and they get plenty of attention in the much more powerful and pervasive right-wing media as it is. The more respectable parts of the right-wing media (not that there is much of that) should also give them a wide berth.
Sounds like an attempt at a great silencing. Shush! You’ll wake the bigots! I think Trump already did that. I’m sure Arana would be against interviewing Donald Trump, or probably nearly any of the Republican candidates.
Go into a mosque? OK. And ask the imam this: “Hi, I hear it’s very easy to convert to Islam. If I was to convert but then decided to leave again, how easy would that be?”
The fine print on the ticket reads: One Way.
Jesus & Mo swap religions.
“I’m sorry. I can’t let you do that.”
;-o
That’s priceless! 😀
I thoroughly recommend people to go into my local, the Birmingham Central Mosque. And to ask who their last imam thought was responsible for London 7/7. The answer? Tony Blair – a put-up job. The man was insane and made Alex Jones look like Socrates.
Then they can ask why his spokeswoman, local Respect Councillor, Salma Yaqoob shared a platform with Tariq Ramadan last Friday in St. Denis, Paris. Or why she called 7/7 ‘reprisals’. And why she launched her political career in 1998, defending the Yemeni 7 alleged terrorists, one of whom was the son of Abu Hamza. And how guilty she felt about igniting the Birmingham riots of 2009 with the cry, “Whose streets? Our streets!”
So yeah, I think real investigative journalists should take Mr. Arana up on his advice. x
In solidarity with the invertebrate moral relativism of Mr. Arana, the spineless Goldsmith’s SU has just published its wisdom of Solomon on the Maryam Namazie lecture fall-out. Briefly, both sides are to blame and you’ve all been very naughty boys: because of a few Islamist thugs the entire student body needs training. It’s our fault, again: we are all to blame.
Allele akhbar. x
http://www.goldsmithssu.org/news/article/6013/Conclusion-of-investigation-ASH-event/
The most credible opponents of Islam are women who came out of Islamic environments. Why are they not given more of a voice?
Required reading should include
“A God Who Hates: The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out Against the Evils of Islam”
by Wafa Sultan
“Reading Lolita in Tehran: A Memoir in Books” by Azar Nafisi
=-=-=
Pamela Geller once charged that Malcolm X impregnated Obama’s mother. It is this sort of thing that should discredit her, not her views on Islam per se.
=-=-=
I am not a big fan of Karen Armstrong, but I find Reza Aslan much more annoying. I find KA simply deeply confused, but RA is disingenuous saying things about the relationship of Islam to slavery that he must on some level know are false. Aslan has also falsified his credentials and biography, something Armstrong has never done.
Armstrong is IMO the intellectual equivalent of thick fog, but Aslan is intellectual quicksand.
I found Armstrong’s book “The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam” alternately informative & interesting but poorly argued, but I found Aslan’s book “No God but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam” to be a thorough going whitewash that I just couldn’t find myself believing a word of anything he said.
One of Armstrong’s biggest recent fails is her criticism of Bill Maher.
Islamophobia is often presented in the mainstream media as something that is to be avoided at all costs, the reasons for this very rarely being given (apart from the old, and frankly idiotic, claim that it is equivalent to being ‘racist’), but it is perfectly rational to be afraid of an ideology that actively encourages, within the scriptures it holds to be sacrosanct due to their divine infallibility, the murder of apostates, atheists, and freethinkers in general.
When I.S.I.S. representatives trot out the claim they are acting on their god’s behalf and living as the Quran say they must, they are actually telling the truth. We hear so much about ‘moderate Muslims’, but there cannot be, by definition, such an oxymoronic entity as a moderate Muslim. Such a creature simply does not exist, and cannot for the very same reason we cannot observe square circles and married bachelors. If anyone doubts this, then they should actually read the Quran, from start to finish, as I have at least five times already. It is a book that is just as extreme as ‘Mein Kampf’, if not more so.
So yes, I am Islamophobic, because I have very good reasons to be this way.
Totally agree with every word.
Even if one granted that moderate Islam exists, whither LIBERAL Islam?
I like some of what Arana says because it is really about executing critical thinking. However, refusing to listen to some people because they front the Right or because someone says something that feels good but is wrong when then evidence is examined (Aslan) flies in the face of critical thinking. Sure, it doesn’t feel quite right when the Left agrees with the Right but you don’t have to agree about whatever they say and you should still question their intent: are they criticizing Islam because they are bigoted or because they are following the evidence? Perhaps the end result doesn’t matter but the intent really does and we should dig deeper to get to that intent as I believe Sam Harris has done when he expresses dismay that bigots are the only ones who seem to agree with the dangers of the ideas expressed in Islam. Of course, this was still to his detriment since many interpreted his dismay as glee, but I digress.
Front = are from (I think). That whole passage I wrote seems mixed up.
In the March “The Atlantic” Graeme Wood has a good, long article opposite to the Karen Armstrong type pablum about the real basis for ISIS, which is The Koran and medieval Islamic theology: “What ISIS Really Wants.”
“if religions can, as many aver, motivate people to do good things, why can’t they motivate people to do bad things? I’ve never heard a satisfactory answer to that simple query.”
Interesting. It does seem to be the assumption that religions are by definition the vehicles of spiritual growth, which implies they exist to make humans realize their best selves.
Maria Popova posted a praise of Parker Palmer on Tw*tter yesterday with this quote of his from an address given at Naropa (American Tibetan university in Colorado): “Take everything that’s bright and beautiful in you and introduce it to the shadow side of yourself.” I critiqued this as trite, but I can see how it is appealing to literate liberals. Wikipedia has Palmer as being from the Quaker tradition, and Quaker-ism, Buddhism, and Yoga practicing seem to be OK forms of religion, ones stripped of most dogma but still providing uplifting elements. It seems that most Americans see religion as the place to turn for making life better; thus all the decrying of “extremism” by moderate religious professionals and journalists, as the parts of religion that could lead to bad behavior are as dismissed as not the true heart of religion. So, if it’s bad, it’s not religion, because religion is supposed to make you better.
(Thanks for using aver two days in a row.)
sub
Reblogged this on The Logical Place.
Journalists could just quote the Coran:
Surah 8:31~
The Coran says that some people said to Mohammad that the stories he was telling were naught but fables of the men of old.
So what evidence is there that those people were not correct ?
Surah 8:32 says that the people sneered at Mohammad’s stories daring that if Allah was real and wanted to defend the stories as being true then Allah should prove it by raining stones on them.
In Surah 8:33 Mohammad gives an excuse why Allah can not give a supernatural demonstration of being real.
Maybe in Surah 8:32 the people should have been made to say the line,”Although we respect you for questioning whether the original stories were factually correct, where is the evidence for your version of the stories ? How can you change the stories of what happened hundreds of years ago without having discovered archaeological evidence or written text such as a stele ? In fact in the far future we hazard a guess that people will create scientific instruments to be able to magnify tiny objects so as to see them better. These objects may appear tiny either due to them being very far away or due to being indeed exceedingly tiny. We think people in future who study the world in great detail will discover things about the world which will make it clear beyond doubt that the ideas in your Coran pertaining to the physical world are largely wildly mistaken and detached from reality. Unfortunately we have no evidence to support our claims about the future, just as their is little evidence to decide whether the stories about long past events were fables or real factual events. However if your version was correct then we would expect there would be writings from past centuries showing that people did argue the same things are you are claiming and not just have this version of events suddenly turn up out of the blue “
Why didn’t Mohammad say in Surah 8:31b- ” I agree with you that the stories are fables to some extent and that is why I am trying to revise them and give a version that seems more likely to me, for instance I doubt if Jesus came back to life because it doesn’t happen in real life, there must be another explanation”