Islam critiqued understands the imagery; humans are worthless without spirituality?

In answer to the video "Bizarre Narrations- Snakes, Mice and Jews"

The comparison of the spiritually dead to animals, and even lower in value, as inert and senseless as a stone 2:74, is very apt in that an animal such as sheep or cattle, despite being of very weak intellect can still properly process what it hears (voice of the herdsman) or sees (location of the herdsman and the rest of the flock) in order to find guidance.

The spiritually dead cannot make use of any of his senses and so is unable to properly process the perceived information to find guidance and rise to ultimate success. A sheep becomes more apt in finding its correct direction and thus thriving through its life. Dumbness (muteness) illustrates how the inability to listen leads to lack of interest, which would naturally be expressed through further verbal inquiry, reflexion, exchanges etc.

2:18"Deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they will not turn back"  

25:44"They are nothing but as cattle; nay, they are straying farther off from the path".

As to the hadith about Jews changed into rats, besides the report itself describing the incredulity of those that heard it reported on behalf of the prophet by only one person, Abu Hurayra, it also shows the prophet himself giving a loose personal opinion based on observation, not a statement of fact

"Muslim2997 a: Abu Huraira reported that Allah's Messenger said: A group of Bani Isra'il was lost. I do not know what happened to it, but I think (that it 'underwent a process of metamorphosis) and assumed the shape of rats. Don't you see when the milk of the camel is placed before them, these do not drink and when the milk of goat is placed before them, these do drink. Abu Huraira said: I narrated this very hadith to Ka'b and he said: Did you hear this from Allah's Messenger? I (Abu Huraira) said: Yes. He said this again and again, and I said: Have I read Torah? This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Ishaq with a slight variation of wording."

The same uncertainty is found in another similar hadith

"Then Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) called him out at the third time saying: O man of the desert, verily Allah cursed or showed wrath to a tribe of Bani Isra'il and distorted them to beasts which move on the earth. I do not know, perhaps this (lizard) may be one of them. So I do not eat it, nor do I prohibit the eating of it".

This observation by the prophet could have been directly or indirectly influenced by a belief floating among the Arabs, more particularly the Banu Salim who forbade themselves to eat the flesh of lizards, asserting that it was a metamorphosed Jew. Clearly these ahadith cannot be taken as related to the Quran passages above or as a basis to interpret them. The hadiths are worded as potentially erroneous subjective suppositions concerning a tribe of bani Israel contemporaneous with the prophet, and the Quran relates a historical incident far preceding the prophet.

Finally, even if the Quran statement of "Be despised apes" is taken as a literal transformation, the Quran says only the transgressors among them were inflicted with that punishment and a prophetic tradition suggests they did not transmit their condition, dying out in their state (hadith scholars say after 3 days)

"Mention was made before him about monkeys, and Mis'ar (one of the narrators) said: I think that (the narrator) also (made a mention) of the swine, which had suffered metamorphosis. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Verily, Allah did not cause the race of those which suffered metamorphosis to grow or they were not survived by young ones. Monkeys and swine had been in existence even before (the metamorphosis of the human beings)".

So both the Quran and hadith speak of a punishment that was inflicted once, in one location, directed at the transgressors in the community. The incident cannot be used to paint Islam as diabolizing the Jews as a whole. Further, both the Quran and ahadith repeatedly distinguish between the righteous among the people of the book and the sinners deserving of condemnation. Whether mention of that shameful event is found in rabbinic literature or not is irrelevant in determining the authenticity of the story. Is oral Jewish tradition and the Talmud expected to faithfully preserve every incident in the life of each Jewish community of the diaspora prior to the finalization of its text? Did the incident even occur before its composition? Is the holocaust mentioned in the Talmud?