You wrote: “Answer; if it is not in the Quran then you get it from the hadith, ancestral historical traditions, or your own mind. My apologies if you use the other two to prove your points of view.”
Jawaid bhai, someone said and I quote (not exact words): when your mind is out of focus, you cannot depend on your eyes. This is precisely your case. Your entire effort has been and continues to be saying things like “no rituals in Quran,….” This is a willful blindness you brought on yourself, you can never see the Quranic truth with such a pre-conceived notion unless God wills otherwise.
You wrote: “I use the Quran as proof and please do not insult what little intelligence I have by using the words that the Quran is in error. Error comes from understanding the Quran differently to what it says due to the limits of language….”
Thank God, you have admitted there is something called “language” as well. When language does not allow one to conclude and infer something, one must get back to the language to understand what it does allow to be inferred. You inferred the following in your previous post, “The Quran says it is fully detailed and left nothing out:..” When I asked you to prove your assertion about 62:9, you replied, “So you deny the Quran when it says it is fully detailed?” Should you not stop at this point and ask: language may have something to do here? And then in line with the language either modify or retract your assertion?
You wrote: “As the Quran uses the words multiple times we are able reduce the interpretations down to the best one, but only if you accept what it says that goes against what pre-conceived notions you bring to it. For example the ‘all in the heavens and the birds’ verse which you have to deny they do salat as it does not fit your notion of what salat is. The salat of closely following Allah, being dutiful to Him, fits every verse so I do not need to ignore or distort any verse, making it in error to fit my belief.”
What you are stating is and what you are doing are poles apart. Words in a language has multiple meanings and connotations. These meanings and connotations are brought out when these words are used in sentences in different ways. You cannot generalize the meanings “such and such means “this” here and there as well”, if structure of the sentence does not permit it. It is perhaps not the language ability, rather your motive has stopped you from comprehending both the “birds in flight” as well as “salat of closely following.” I am going to respond to your “salat of closely following” soon, and then will open up a new heading for sajood and ruku IA as I get some time.
You wrote: “As for your insistence on knowing how to call, I think I have answered this effectively and you trying to equate the not knowing how to call someone and leaving it to our ancestors to tell us with the Quran, leaving out the instructions for namaz, is too serious to be referred to as laughable.”
No, you did not answer the question related to CALL. You cannot answer it either, it exposes your claim of so called “details”. Again, as prophet fulfilled the command of “CALL” in 62:9, exactly the same way, he did with reference to the Ibrahimic “rites.” You however deny these “rites” and bring in your notions that “manasiks” mean this and that. This is not staying in line and according to the language, rather mounting the language with extra-quranic notions.
You wrote: “You simply do not need to have someone stand on the Kaabah to call them to a gathering, it is left for us to decide how to do this as we evolve mentally and scientifically. NO DETAILS ARE NECESSARY, BUT IF YOU WANT TO PRAY 5 TIMES A DAY, 24/7 I WOULD EXPECT THAT THESE INSTRUCTIONS WOULD BE REQUIRED. Can you not see the difference/importance of one over the other?”
Where are such thoughts emerging from? Not from the book rather from your desires of discarding the salat and bring in whatever and wherever your fancy takes you. What you “EXPECT” is based on your limited and poor understanding of the book. You bring in this poor understanding and mount the verses, instead of letting the verses speak for themselves. This is pathetic to say the least.