Reference in chapter 96 says 'a slave' and not 'the slave of Allah'.
Sorry, Tabari says it is Muhammad so we must accept this!
The meaning of the chapter is totally devastated when you apply fairy tale 'research' to it. You are not approaching it 'pure'. You are mounting the Quran with your ideas and you have presented no proof from the Quran to back up what you say. Where is the first contact story in the Quran with all the details?
56:77 That this Qur’an is a Noble Monograph.
56:78 In a well-guarded Book. [As conveyed to you]
56:79 This is a Book that none but the pure of mind can grasp.
I am reminded of a response by brother Mansur at speakers corner, Hyde Park, to an individual that unless he accepts well understood logical points of view, there is no point going ahead with a discussion. Every time clear verses of the Quran are presented, you bring forth fairy tale stories, ignore the meaning or chop out birds etc from the context. If you say you are a figment of your own imagination, it does not matter what I say, you will not believe I exist.
You are just going to continue to present fairy tales as evidence!