I have combined two of your posts to me in this one.
You wrote: “Let me agree for the sake of further discussion that nataq means the speech of man. Can you see the wama, NEG – negative particle, at the beginning? Does it have anything to do with the sentence it is in? As it clearly does, then it negates the words that were spoken by the Messenger, the nataq, were his own. This means he was not speaking his own words but revelation, as 53.4 goes on to say.”
My brother, in simple English the verse 53:3 word-for-word says:
[53:3]: And NOT he speaks from the desire.
First, yanṭiqu, from Nataq is completely and fully referring to human prophet’s speech. You cannot equate “Nataq = the Word”. Second, it does not say “Not he speaks”, rather it says what it says so clearly. All human beings when they speak, they have desires/needs behind that speech. 53:3 is simply stating, prophet’s speech/talk related to recounting this encounter is not from his desire, he has no need to say so, he is not making up a story, he is not giving a false statement, etc. Thus, whatever he is expressing it is the truth and relates to the Wahi.
You wrote: “Now you have made up a story about the first contact and all the teachings not put in the Quran but we are supposed to do since the Messenger taught them, but this is not verified by the Quran.”
I have made up a story? What a nonsense. Jibreel came to prophet to convey to him about God, His plans to make him a prophet, and begin the process of his ministry, etc., and you come up with simple “I made a story” allegations. Perhaps, something at much graver scale must have happened to prophet when he disclosed his encounter to the people at that time. 53:2 is responding to those labels.
You wrote: “First unknown revelation, hadith, when and where verses were revealed, fantasy tales of made up characters, etc, when will the Quran be sufficient for you?”
Hadeeth is your mental block, you keep bringing it up over and over without a warrant. Did I bring it up anywhere in my discussion? I have responded to Br. Razi and gave my reasons why I think and conclude the way I did. Please read my analysis, refute those adhering to grammar/lexicon, and the context, else you have mere opinions removed from the text, hence, no grounds to stand upon.
You wrote: “Answer: Ritual prayer by definition is an act of worship that has no benefit except bending down to Allah when He already knows what is in your heart so you are a submitter or not, and reciting words you do not understand back to Him Who gave them TO YOU to follow!”
I asked Br. Razi, “what is the message and purpose of Quran?” In your response, did you address this Question? None, whatsoever. If you cannot answer such a simple and basic question, how on earth you will be able to refute it? Simply bringing in your own definitions as to what X means and for what purpose, completely removed from the book, you cannot refute the ritual prayers/salat.
You wrote: “Salat = following everything He has given us and when we do this He will Know what is in our hearts without us bending down; a practical demonstration of our real submission.”
Sadly, this is what we have come to. Give me a verse which supports your definition, else you have no grounds to stand upon?
You wrote: “Ritual prayer=religion, Salat = Deen.”
Again, I ask you for a verse to state what you are stating?