That Omid Safi relies on tradition already shows that he has no knowledge of Qur'aan.<quoted text>
Singaporian bmz rejects all sira and hadiths. As far as he is concerned, every muslim and non author is either and idiot or an asshole including Ishaq and Tabari. He is basically a Koran only Mohammadi. On one hand you have professors of Islamic studies such as Omid Safi relying on Islamic tradition while on the other we have bmz abusing them - that's the tragedy of Islam.
When I read and studied Qur'aan, I had never touched any other book. I understood. How come you cannot? And after reading Qur'aan, then I studied Hadith and other books, which were full of junk and stuff. How can I accept them, when the fail to stand under the scrutiny of Qur'aan?
The simple answer is that you never did and just make foolish remarks like internet junkies.
I ask you again. What came first? What did Muslims read 3-5 centuries before the arrival of other books? Only Qur'aan.
And you have the audacity to tell me that in order to understand Qur'aan, I need to read junk and stuff?