You wrote: “Please get back to the fundamental question - what does the word salat means without referring to any coined meanings. Do we have a dictionary saying salat = ritual prayer which existed before Quranic revelation or in jahlia poetry? Otherwise it looks like that coined meanings were given in the post-Quranic dictionaries. Are we not supposed to follow Quran only? In my humble understanding there are no broad assumptions and generalizations rather getting back to the un-corrupted message of Quran.”
When you say “it looks like that coined meanings were given in the post-quranic dictionaries…,” do you have any pre-quranic dictionary with which you can compare and conclude what you did? I am referring to classics like Taj ul Aroos, Qamoos, Lughat, Lane, etc. The biggest generalization is stating without proof that Quranic words and phrases are corrupted and such corrupted meanings are then found in classic lexicons. Please educate me when and where the term “salat” was corrupted? Who corrupted it? Which pre-quranic source did you use to find such a corruption has occurred? So on and so forth. Further, I asked you in my previous post to educate me about the term Salat being equal to following closely etc? Please do so.
You wrote: “Dawood Bhai it took me many years to understand the fact that Arabic language cannot be misused. Its root based system of meanings is so strong that no one can play with it. In the presence of original text we can safely get to the original meanings of each and every term used in the Quran. If we leave the basics of the language then of course anyone can coin any meanings of the words. The language existed before the revelation of the Quran and people understood the Quranic terms in their original meanings. Dictionaries with adopted/coined meanings were written long after the revelation.”
No one is advocating leaving the basics of a language aside. You and me have no recourse except referring to classic lexicons if we want to understand anything. Which lexicons in your opinion are tainted with corrupted meanings, how, when, and where? Which lexicons you would consider to be safe to study the so-called “uncorrupted meanings”, and why?
You wrote: “I can agree with your methodology from (i) to (iv) but not with (v) which can be rephrased as " how people were made to understand and use the coined meanings of the Quranic words." Remember how Shafi convinced the sheeple that hadith is a must to understand Quran. And then hadith became a source of rituals making the Quran "Mahjoor" (25:30)”
Yet again, more generalizations without any proof? Show me where and when Shafi convinced masses about what you stated and after Shafi hadith became a source of Salat ritual?
In my study spread over 15+ years, Quran is being made Mahjoor by both hadith-based and post-hadith-based individuals, including my Quran-only brothers, none is letting the Quran speak for itself. The formers are bringing hadith to mount the verses of Quran, whereas the latter are doing the same through the outside notions, like “no rituals in Quran”, “God cannot do this or that,” “this does not make sense to me, thus, I am free to run with my wild notions and define it the way it makes sense to me”, so on and so forth. A glaring example of this methodology is to redefine the word “salat.” I asked you some questions related to this word in my other post to you. When you reply to those questions, I will then analyze whether you are adhering to (i)-(iv) either.
You wrote: “I am sorry Dawood Bhai but you have not shown any evidence that salat=prayer since Ibrahim's time, other than blind following of masses of adopted meanings given in lexicons written long after the revelation of the Quran.”
I asked you earlier which lexicons you think are trustworthy to begin with and why? Answer those questions and then we can go from there. You are making extra-ordinary claims that salat=prayer is post quranic? As the saying goes, extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence, my brother. Get that evidence together and present it, else you have no grounds to stand upon.