Brother Jawaid thank you for your patience. Here are my two cents.
You wrote: “Context of 53:3-4 is quite clearly referring to Quran alone”
No, it is not referring to the Quran. Let me elaborate a bit.
[53:2]: Your companion [Muhammad] has not strayed (ḍalla), nor has he erred (ghawā).
1. Please note in 53:2, God is responding in support of the exalted prophet. There were allegations/talks of “dalla = perplexed, confused, mixing of real and imaginary, straying from the right course, etc.” and “ghawā = deceived, misled, straying/deviating from the right course, disappointed, failed to attain one’s desires, etc.” So what happened in response to which people were labelling the prophet with labels such as: He got confused/perplexed, he is mixing up things, he is deviating from the right course, he has failed to achieve his goals/desires, so on and so forth? These labels were used describing prophet’s condition after the first Wahi/revelation encounter which not only changed the life of the prophet it also changed the course of history. After this initial encounter with angel Gabriel, prophet described what happened. This description of prophet is termed “his speech” in 53:3:
[53:3]: And not he speaks “yanṭiqu” from the desire “l-hawā”.
2. The word “nūn ṭā qāf, Nataq” is used to describe human speech which can explain something in totality, with logic and clarity. Thus, the encounter that prophet had with angel Gabriel was described by him to his family and friends in his own words. The first Quranic revelation(s) if any must have been described in exact forms as revealed. On hearing this, some started labeling him as I explained above. To this, God responded via 53:2 and 53:4.
[53:4]: It is not but a revelation revealed,
3. Therefore, 53:4 is covering both prophet’s non-quranic speech describing the encounter as well as the first ever Quranic revelations if any. There is no reference to Quran anywhere in these verses. This is further reinforced in 53:5 in which reference to Quran is again missing, rather it states whatever prophet spoke was taught to him by “someone” in strength. Part of 53:6 is describing further quality of this “someone”. Part of 53:6 is linking it with the 53:7-9 as to how this someone came closer to prophet. Then he revealed what he revealed [53:10]. Thus, this revelation was not only the beginning of the Quran but more than this. It was perhaps during this encounter that angel Gabriel conveyed to prophet who is God, how to become the first ever Muslim, that he will be the messenger of God, how to pray, etc. It was perhaps this encounter that enabled prophet to read/write afterwards.
You wrote: “Every single reference to revelation in the Quran is directing us to the Quran but some think differently”
Your assertion and quotes of 38:1-2 are untenable, I hope the above sets the record straight.
You wrote: “The verse you quoted about Salat of Abraham is again devoid of any physical ritual to be performed …”
My brother, 2:125 it is not devoid of any physical rituals, rather you are making it to be so because of extraquranic notions. If you read starting from 2:124 all the way to 2:129, you will see that this Salat of Ibrahim in 2:125 is one of the Manasiks (= religious practices, ways, methods) Ibrahim asked for the Muslim nation in 2:128, in addition to two other supplications in 2:129. This has been discussed elsewhere in detail. Salat’s three main elements of standing, bowing, and sujood are clearly given in 2:125.
You wrote: “Believe in One God and everything, including the shadows follow the commands of God. You dismissed the birds, now dismiss the shadows, everything living or none living, and good luck putting salat = physical ritual, sujood = physical prostration, so words have be altered for the Quran but the Quran fights back”
I don’t dismiss anything except your extrapolations. You want to subordinate muhkamat verses to those of allegorical verses? Why? Clear and Mubeen verses documenting prophets’ physical actions in support of rituals are neglected. Why? There is only one explanation I could think of, i.e. your extraquranic notions cannot be supported without clinching to allegorical straws. Let me assure you even allegorical verses when read in context cannot support your extraquranic assertions. Yet, you have the audacity to suggest that words/meanings of the Quran have been altered? I asked you earlier, please give me one example of such alterations. Do you have one?