LoL. It is obvious you did not like what I quoted from Lane, a respected source in lexicons. Thus, you have to create confusion to muddy the waters, so to speak. Dear brother Quran is in Arabic, the language spoken and written by the people to whom this was revealed. Lane is simply translating those spoken and written words in English. Did people of the time understand “salat” as explained by Lane? Yes, indeed, they did. You have no ground to stand upon unless you write your own lexicon.
You wrote: “I am giving these examples to show that we cannot accept anything and everything that we read, including what I am saying and especially you, Dawood Bhai, but we must go back to the roots, look at the meaning of salat as closely follow, and move forward….”
Here is an example for you to consider. In Arabic a number of words are made from root letters, lām ḥā mīm. Its meanings are: something closely woven together, relationship, the woof or threads woven together or warp or of a piece of cloth; or a place of backbiting, etc. From here it gets meanings of “lahama=flesh”. Quran has used this 12 times. When Arabs read it in Quran or they read it in Quran today, do they think something woven together, or relationship, or they think it to mean “flesh”? It is obvious, when a word is coined to represent something and it assumes the desired form and currency, it is always understood and used to represent what it was invented/coined to represent. Thus, Salat is what Lane has written, Arabs understood it, they continue to understand it. “closely following” are derived meanings coined to represent something different and need be read in the context.
You wrote: “..Namaz is a physical act that has nothing to do with following Allah, it is devoid of learning what He wants us to do, whereas doing what He wants us to do is salat.”
Again, you have brought your notions to bear on the Quran. What is the purpose of Salat? Is it following Allah or is it His remembrance? Verses are clearly mentioning the purpose of salat to be “His remembrance.” You can only reason it from this perspective, else you have no ground to stand upon.