Does Williams defection tilt title hopes to UCLA?
Now that Derrick Williams has broken the hearts of all Arizona fans, declaring for the NBA Draft and deciding he will hire an agent, the dust is beginning to settle on the 2011-12 Pac-12 prospectus.
Only three of the league's all-conference first-team picks are slated to return, depending on the decision of Washington State's Klay Thompson, who is expected to turn pro: UCLA's Reeves Nelson, Stanford's Jeremy Green - who was just suspended for academics for the spring quarter - and Cal's Jorge Gutierrez.
The Bears also return second-team pick Harper Kamp and conference freshman-of-the-year Allen Crabbe. The Cardinal bring back forward Josh Owens, an all-conference honorable mention, and all-freshman picks Anthony Brown and Dwight Powell. Arizona State's Trent Lockett and Washington State DeAngelo Casto also return from the second team, as does Arizona's Lamont Jones, who pair him with all-freshman guard Jordin Mayes. Meanwhile Washington returns C.J. Wilcox and Terrence Ross, two talented freshmen, newcomer Colorado has Alec Burks and Andre Roberson returning and USC has all-freshman guard Maurice Jones.
And that's it. For the league. Those are the stars as you have it.
Except for UCLA, which is now positioned to take control of the conference with Williams' departure. Despite losing Malcolm Lee and Tyler Honeycutt, the Bruins return Nelson, two senior point guards in Lazeric Jones and Jerime Anderson and the conference's most intriguing big man in Joshua Smith. Add to that the addition of David and Travis Wear, Norman Powell and De'End Parker and a roster that will include a year-older Brendan Lane, Anthony Stover and Tyler Lamb.
It should be another down year for the conference, but the Bruins are poised to take advantage.
Lee's absence will hurt some early on, but having Zeke AND Jerime back as seniors will more than offset. CBH will surely have each focused on defending better, too, until Parker & Powell are ready to contribute on that side of the ball, too. Lamb could prove to be a nice lockdown defender, too, with both his quickness and length -- they do preach defense at Mater Dei. Though they may not get the respect early, UCLA starts with Top-10 talent and CBH could have another Final 4 contender here, even minus Honey & Lee. And the NBA gravy train will continue, as Smith should go lottery and Reeves will go somewhere between where Honey & Lee go this year. Stover, Lane, the Wears ... wow, this group next year is still loaded.
Arizona has some guys and a really good coach and their recruiting class was top five so I'm thinking Arizona will ptobably win it.
Nearly 90% voting for ucla on a ucla blog-- mind-boggling.
This is a little like taking a vote in a Jewish Synagogue about which religion is best-- Christianity, Islam etc and the vote would probably go something like this:
Jewish-- 99%
Christian-- .2%
Islam-- .2%
Buddhism-- .2%
Hinduism-- .2%
Other-- .2%
LAWYER JOHN
who cares, we still won't compete nationally.
John,
The fans here vote honestly, which is clear to any honest and regular reader. Asking "Who will win the PAC 12 in football next year?" will NOT get 90% for UCLA. This is no BruinsNation.
As for "Which religion?" Anyone who knows anything about Islam knows it's not a "religion" in the sense in which those raised in the twilight of Western Civilization would understand it; "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5) is hardly "religion."
You must be a liar -- I mean, "lawyer."
Actually great point Mr. John and yes, Islam, is, in fact, a religion and on a football poll on this site UCLA would garner may more votes than it should. In my opinion, I would be shocked if Arizona didn't win it again next year and, for the record, I can't stand Arizona basketball.
How sad . . . is that Lawyer John posting anonymously in his own defense?
So, "Anonymous," what part of ""Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old" (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 and 65) says "religion" to you?
If Muhammad's Allah-ordained child rape isn't enough, what about his genocidal anti-Semitism?
"And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected" (Qur'an 2:65).
"Allah's Apostle said, 'The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him"'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177).
Or his eternal war against all non-Muslims?
"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . " (Qur'an 5:33).
Ibn Kathir says of this verse: "'Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil." So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for "disbelief."
That's what you're defending, Anon. Well done!
I give you Leviticus 5.8 And he shall bring them unto the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin offering first, and wring off his head from his neck, but shall not divide it asunder:
Now give it a rest, you guys.
I give you Leviticus 5.8 And he shall bring them unto the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin offering first, and wring off his head from his neck, but shall not divide it asunder:
Now give it a rest, you guys.
The Old Testament is pretty harsh in some places, though not even close to the rag called the Qur'an. Please read the New Testament to see the real difference between Christianity and Islam. Mohamed vs. Christ is definitely pure evil vs. pure good. Our country needs to understand this. Off subject, but you brought it up.
it really amazes me that anything as irrational as religion is attempted to be argued rationally. Let's do this sheep, think for yourselves!
Wasn't it a foregone conclusion D Williams was out after this season? The only surprise was Malcolm, whose injury will prevent from competing in camps and will try to get drafted solely by reputation and AAU connections.
I wish him the best but with the looming lockout next season and nursing an injury, I was hoping he'd stay in school. But, I can't blame the kid who made a decision that is best for him and his family.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, Michael, do you not see the contrast between your quotation and those provided earlier? How is an animal sacrifice at all comparable to pedophilia, genocidal anti-Semitism, or warring against all "unbelievers" until they either convert, submit, or die?
Keith is right; there are harsh commands in the Old Testament, but those were for the people of Israel only who entered into that contract with YHWH through Moses voluntarily. That is in no way morally equivalent to "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5).
Even the judgment against Egypt was Divine alone, and the command against Canaan was a one-time, limited Divine judgment for great evil (Molech worship, for example), sins for which Israel would later face the same fate.
The gulf between Christ and Allah is vast:
Christ committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected, commanding His people to love even their enemies. From Him we have the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule.
On the other hand, Muhammad practiced and preached genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, torture, mutilation, theft, extortion, wife-beating, polygyny, religious and gender apartheid, deceit, and blasphemy, claiming that, "Allah made me do it, and so will you, or else!" by which he sacralized the violation of all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule.
No, the contrast between Christ and Allah is the difference between Heaven and hell.
Generally, the comments around here concerning sports and UCLA sports in particular, run the gamut from somewhat informed, reasoned and well measured all the way to silly, reactive and bone-headed. And now you propose 'discussing' religion? On a sports blog? Using pseudonyms? Are you kidding? Are the dust bunnies under your beds so frightening that you've got to puff yourself up with silly, trite misrepresentations of Islam? What happened to Christ's message of inclusion, tolerance and empathy? You guys really need to turn those computers off and get out in the sunshine. You're pressing the bone-headed end of the spectrum.
You might not like the religion and you might disagree with it's teachings but Islam is, in fact, a religion. I'm also not John defending himself. And Arizona, even though I find their fans generally to be obnoxious, will be favored to win the Pac-12, UCLA will be predicted second, then Washington. And if this were a Baby Ruth site and the poll was "What is the best candy bar?" Baby Ruth would win.
Baby Ruth is pretty good. But my vote is for Butterfinger. Way better, haha.
Thank you, MichaelRyerson, for being a voice of reason.
Half the time I try to post and get the message text entered was wrong but the text entered wasn't wrong. Why?
Now we wait for the Islam is not a religion genius to tell us a Butterfinger is not a candy bar.
Butterfinger is not a candy bar.
There someone said it. And Grizzly Adams had a beard!
Glad I could be of service.
(I see that reading comprehension just isn't your game, Michael. So much for the benefit of the doubt.)
Lawyer John and his anonymous alleged sidekick were those "misrepresenting Islam," not me. I merely quoted Muhammad. Are you implying that Muhammad didn't understand the "religion" he created? Are you some kind of Islamophobe?
Pointing out your fellow Useful Idiot dhimmis' actual misrepresentations of Islam is not "arguing religion," it's just stating facts. You highlight this generously, as the careful reader will note that you offer nothing from the Islamic "sacred" texts (or any of the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence) to demonstrate my error. All you've got is . . . ridiculous and unimaginative slurs?
How brave.
Well, Michael, the honest reader has an easy choice to make. I offer Muhammad's own words, and you . . . just make stuff up. Whom should we believe? (Hint, don't rely on the guy equating the Mosaic Covenant with "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5). Or the guy boasting of Pakistan, where 78% of Muslims surveyed support death for apostasy: http://amillennialist.blogspot.com/2009/09/78-of-muslims-in-pakistan-islamophobic.html. You choose your allies well, don't you, Mike?)
Michael says, "Islam's a religion of peace," but Muhammad declared:
"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah?" (Qur'an 9:111).
(That's a "silly, trite misrepresentation of Islam"? Allah will not be pleased.)
You're calling cyanide "candy."
Nobody cares. Move on.
All any religion does is justify why the respective believer is better than any one else....poison, the world would be a better place without ANY organized religion.
"Nobody cares," as evidenced by that comment.
Isn't that peculiar?
One major world "religion" calls its devotees "the best of people," demonizes members of its fellow "Abrahamic" (that's a lie) faiths as "fuel for the fire," and commands the enslavement or slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert. (Hint: It's the one being defended by you and your fellow Useful Idiot dhimmmis.)
On the other hand, Christianity teaches that none of us are "any better," but that Christ died for the sins of all, to reconcile the world to God.
Let's see . . . one god requires the rape, slavery, and slaughter of unbelievers, the other God dies for the sins of all.
Are you sure all religions are the same?
I think you just accepted that Islam is a religion. I rest my case.
Wow, what an exchange. For all of you who love to see off-topic, ugly nonsense on your football blogs, I invite you to come over to Wolf's USC blog, where off-topic shenanigans and mean-spirited insults are the standard fare. Some of you should fit right in.
By the way, when I was in high school, way back in the early 1990's, one of my best friends was Muslim (she still is, last I heard). I don't recall her doing much raping, enslaving, murdering, etc., but I suppose she was too busy preparing for college and medical school. I believe that today she specializes in reconstructive plastic surgery for children with birth defects and people who've suffered injuries to their faces (car accident victims, battered women, etc.). Ah, those Muslims! Always up to something!
Kaczynski?
Cafe,
You do know that Zawahiri's a surgeon, don't you?
Yours is the typical, knee-jerk "My dentist/next door neighbor/IT guy/beer-drinkin', pork-eatin', brother-in-law is a Muslim and wouldn't hurt a fly!" offered in response to anyone pointing out the simple and obvious fact that Islam kills.
Is your clumsy conflation of what a religion's founder commands and what his followers may or may not do the product of your own confusion or an attempt to confuse others?
For whether or not your Muslima supports jihad and shari'a in word or deed has nothing to do with whether or not Muhammad preached and practiced them. In other words, you'd have us believe that since your Muslima was a nice girl, Muslims don't kill in obedience to Allah and in emulation of its apostle. If only that were true!
No major school of Islamic jurisprudence rejects offensive warfare against non-Muslims. Al-Ghazali, considered by many the greatest Muslim after Muhammad, reiterated the necessity of waging jihad and of humiliating conquered non-Muslims. For fourteen hundred years, as knowledge, zeal, resources, and circumstances have allowed, Muslims have committed the most vile atrocities against non-Muslims around the world, including seventeen thousand documented jihad attacks since 9/11 alone.
But hey, folks! 9/11 never happened, because Cafe's high school friend hasn't raped anyone!
Anonymous thinks I just accepted that Islam is a religion. He rests his case. Just like a LAWYER.
JOHN?
Since I wrote that Islam's "not a 'religion' in the sense" that we typically use the word -- it commands the enslavement or slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert -- it's clear that Anon is either unwilling or unable to represent my position honestly.
And after all these "arguments" -- including Cafe's -- no one's demonstrated from Islam's "sacred" texts, history, or jurisprudence that I've misrepresented anything. All they've offered is puerile mockery and the token non-violent Muslim who may or may not truly reject Muhammad's commands to wage war against the non-Muslim world.
How about someone demonstrate the intellectual integrity to address Muhammad's words and deeds -- and what Muslims believe about them -- forthrightly?