KUFUR dan 7 perkara yang membinasakan

السلام عليكم ورحمته الله وبركا ته

KUFUR

‎Definisi kufur: Kufur secara bahasa berarti menutupi. Sedangkan menurut syara’; kufur adalah tidak beriman kepada Allah dan Rasul-Nya baik dengan mendustakannya atau tidak mendustakan- nya.

Kufur secara garis besar dibagi menjadi dua jenis: Kufur besar dan Kufur kecil.

1. Kufur Besar: Kufur besar bisa mengeluarkan seseorang dari agama Islam. Kufur besar ini sendiri ada lima kategori:
a. Kufur karena mendustakan, dalilnya adalah firman Allah: “Dan siapakah yang lebih zalim daripada orang-orang yang mengada-adakan kedustaan terhadap Allah atau mendustakan yang hak tatkala yang hak itu datang kepadanya? Bukankah dalam neraka Jahannam itu ada tempat bagi orang-orang yang kafir? (QS. 29:68).
b. Kufur karena enggan dan sombong,padahal membenarkannya. . Dalilnya adalah firman Allah dalam surat al-Baqarah ayat 34.
c. Kufur karena ragu, dalilnya adalah firman Allah dalam surat al-Kahfi ayat 35-38.
d. Kufur karena berpaling, dalilnya adalah firman Allah dalam surat al- Ahqaaf ayat 3, yang artinya : “Dan orang-orang kafir itu berpaling dari peringatan yang disampaikan kepada mereka”.
e. Kufur karena nifaq, dalilnya adalah firman Allah Ta’âla dalam surat al-Munâ fiqûn ayat 3, yaitu (artinya): “Yang demikian itu adalah karena mereka ber- iman (secara lahirnya), lalu kafir (secara batinnya), kemudian hati mereka dikunci mati, karena itu mereka tidak dapat mengerti”.

2. Kufur Kecil: Kufur kecil yaitu kufur yang tidak menjadikan pelakunya keluar dari agama Islam, dan ia adalah kufur ‘amaliy . Kufur ‘amaliy ialah dosa-dosa yang disebutkan di dalam al-Qur’an dan as- Sunnah sebagai dosa-dosa kufur, tetapi tidak mencapai derajat kufur besar. Seperti kufur nikmat, sebagaimana yang disebutkan dalam firman-Nya surat an-Nahl ayat 83, yaitu (artinya): “Mereka mengetahui nikmat Allah, kemudian mereka mengingkarinya dan kebanyakan mereka adalah orang-orang yang kafir”.

Termasuk juga membunuh orang Muslim, sebagaimana disebutkan dalam sabda NabiShallallâhu 'Alaihi Wasallam: “Mencaci seorang muslim adalah suatu kefasikan dan membunuhnya adalah suatu kekufuran”. Dalam sabdanya yang lain: “Janganlah kalian sepeninggalku kembali lagi menjadi orang-orang kafir, sebagian kalian memenggal leher sebagian yang lain”. (HR. al-Bukhari dan Muslim)
Termasuk juga bersumpah dengan nama selain Allah. Nabi Shallallâhu 'Alaihi Wasallam bersabda: “Barangsiapa bersumpah dengan nama selain Allah berarti ia telah kafir atau musyrik”. Yang demikian itu karena Allah tetap menjadikan para pelaku dosa besar sebagai orang-orang mukmin, Allah berfirman: “Hai orang-orang yang ber- iman, diwajibkan atas kamu qishash berkenaan dengan orang-orang yang dibunuh”. (al-Baqarah: 178)
Allah tidak mengeluarkan orang yang membunuh dari golongan orang-orang ber- iman, bahkan menjadikannya sebagai saudara bagi wali yang (berhak melaku- kan) qishash sebagaimana dalam surat al-Baqarah ayat 178. Yang dimaksud dengan saudara dalam ayat tersebut adalah saudara se-agama (Q.S. al-Hujurat : 9-10).

Kesimpulan

Perbedaan antara Kufur Besar dengan Kufur Kecil:

1. Kufur besar mengeluarkan pelakunya dari agama Islam dan menghapuskan (pahala) amalnya, sedangkan kufur kecil tidak menjadikan pelakunya keluar dari agama Islam, juga tidak menghapuskan (pahala) amalnya, tetapi bisa mengurangi (pahala)nya sesuai dengan kadar kekufura nnya, dan pelakunya tetap dihadapkan dengan ancaman.

2. kufur besar menjadikan pelakunyakekal di dalam neraka, sedangkan kufur kecil, jika pelakunya masuk neraka maka ia tidak kekal di dalamnya, dan bisa saja Allah memberi ampunan kepada pelaku nya sehingga ia tidak masuk neraka sama sekali.

3. kufur besar menjadikan halal darah dan harta pelakunya, sedangkan kufur kecil tidak demikian.

4. kufur besar mengharuskan adanya permusuhan yang sesungguhnya, antarapelakunya dengan orang-orang mukmin. Orang-orang mukmin tidak boleh mencintai dan setia kepadanya, betapapun ia adalah keluarga terdekat. Adapun kufur kecil maka ia tidak melarang secara mutlak adanya kesetiaan, tetapi pelakunya dicintai dan diberi kesetiaan sesuai dengan kadar keimanannya, dan dibenci serta dimusuhi sesuai dengan kadar kemaksiatannya. Hal yang sama juga dikatakan dalam perbedaan antara pelaku syirik besar dengan syirik kecil.

Mengenai pertanyaan anda: Apakah kita boleh menyebut kafir kepada mereka yang selain Muslim, misalnya orang kristen?
Berikut kami lampirkan fatwa semisal dari al-Lajnah ad-Daaimah lil buhuts al-'Ilmiyyah wal Ifta', sebuah majlis fatwa resmi kerajaan Arab Saudi (Semacam Majlis Ulama Indonesia/MUI) :

S: Apakah boleh seorang muslim mengatakan kepada orang Yahudi atau Kristen ; KAFIR…?

J: Boleh bagi seorang Muslim untuk mengatakan kepada orang Yahudi atau kepada orang Kristen bahwa ia KAFIR ; karena demikianlah Allah menyifatkan mereka di dalam al-Qur’an dan hal ini sesuatu yang dimaklumi bagi orang yang mentadabbur al-Qur’an, diantaranya firmanNya:

“Sesungguhnya orang-orang yang kafir dari Ahli Kitab dan orang- orang yang berbuat syirik (tempatnya) di neraka Jahannam dan mereka kekal di dalamnya”. (Q.S. al-Bayyinah: 6). Ahlul Kitab yang dimaksud disini adalah orang-orang Yahudi dan Nasrani.

Wabillaahit Taufiq, Washallallaahu 'ala Nabiyyina Muhammad Wa aalihi Washahbihi Wasallam. (Fatwa al-Laj- nah ad-Daaimah lil buhuts al-'Ilmiyyah wal Ifta' , jld. II, no. 4252, hal. 143)

S: Apakah boleh memanggil seorang Nashrani sebagai KAFIR?

J: Ya, boleh kita menamakan/menyebut orang-orang Yahudi dan Nashrani, menyi- fatkan keduanya serta memvonisnya dengan KEKUFURAN ; karena Allah-lah Yang menamakan dan memvonis terhadap mereka demikian. Allah berfirman:“Orang- orang kafir yakni ahli Kitab dan orang- orang musyrik (mengatakan bahwa mereka) tidak akan meninggalkan (agama-nya) sebelum datang kepada mereka bukti yang nyata”. (Q..S. al-Bayyinah: 1). Dan Ahlul Kitab disini adalah orang-orang Yahudi dan Nashrani. Dan firmanNya lagi: “Sesungguhnya telah kafirlah orang- orang yang berkata: ‘Sesungguhnya Allah ialah al-Masih putera Maryam’ ..”. ( Q.S. al-Mâidah: 72). Dan firmanNya yang lain: “Sesungguhnya kafirlah orang- orang yang mengatakan bahwasanya Allah salah satu dari yang tiga (trinitas red)…” .. Dan nash-nash al-Qur’an dan Hadits Nabawiyyah yang lainnya yang memvonis kafir terhadap mereka. Wabillaahittaufiq, Washallallaahu 'ala nabiyyina Muhammad Wa’ala Aalihi Washahbihi Wasallam.

(Fatwa al-Lajnah ad-Daaimah lil buhuts al-'Ilmiyyah wal Ifta' , jld. II, no. 4252, hal.. 143-144).
Wallaahu a'lam. Wassalaamu 'alaikum Warahmatullaahi Wabarokaatuh. " wahai tuhan ku, aku tak layak kesyurgamu ...namun tak pula aku sanggup keNerakamu.. .......,kami lah hamba yang mengharap belas darimu ........Ya Allah jadikan lah kami hamba2 mu yang bertaqwa.... ..ampunkan dosa2 kami, kedua ibubapa kami, dosa semua umat2 islam yang masih hidup mahupun yang telah meninggal dunia.

Afghans Offer Jobs to Taliban Rank and File if They Defect

By DEXTER FILKINS

Published: November 27, 2009

JALALABAD, Afghanistan — The American-backed campaign to persuade legions of Taliban gunmen to stop fighting got under way here recently, in an ornate palace filled with Afghan tribal leaders and one very large former warlord leading the way.

Majid/Getty Images

Guns laid down by former Taliban fighters lined a wall at a reconciliation meeting. Many were promised paid work.

The New York Times

“O.K., I want you guys to go out there and persuade the Taliban to sit down and talk,” Gul Agha Shirzai, the governor of Nangarhar Province, told a group of 25 tribal leaders from four eastern provinces. In a previous incarnation, Mr. Shirzai was the American-picked governor of Kandahar Province after the Taliban fell in 2001.

“Do whatever you have to do,” the rotund Mr. Shirzai told the assembled elders. “I’ll back you up.”

After about two hours of talking, Mr. Shirzai and the tribal elders rose, left for their respective provinces and promised to start turning the enemy.

The meeting is part of a battlefield push to lure local fighters and commanders away from the Taliban by offering them jobs in development projects that Afghan tribal leaders help select, paid by the American military and the Afghan government.

By enlisting the tribal leaders to help choose the development projects, the Americans also hope to help strengthen both the Afghan government and the Pashtun tribal networks.

These efforts are focusing on rank-and-file Taliban; while there are some efforts under way to negotiate with the leaders of the main insurgent groups, neither American nor Afghan officials have much faith that those talks will succeed soon.

Afghanistan has a long history of fighters switching sides — sometimes more than once. Still, efforts so far to persuade large numbers of Taliban fighters to give up have been less than a complete success. To date, about 9,000 insurgents have turned in their weapons and agreed to abide by the Afghan Constitution, said Muhammad Akram Khapalwak, the chief administrator for the Peace and Reconciliation Commission in Kabul.

But in an impoverished country ruined by 30 years of war, tribal leaders said that many more insurgents would happily put down their guns if there was something more worthwhile to do.

“Most of the Taliban in my area are young men who need jobs,” said Hajji Fazul Rahim, a leader of the Abdulrahimzai tribe, which spans three eastern provinces. “We just need to make them busy. If we give them work, we can weaken the Taliban.”

In the Jalalabad program, tribal elders would reach out to Taliban commanders to press them to change sides. The commanders and their fighters then would be offered jobs created by local development programs.

The Pashtuns, who form the core of the Taliban, make up a largely tribal society, with families connected to one another by kinship and led by groups of elders. Over the years, the Pashtun tribes have been substantially weakened, with elders singled out by three groups: Taliban fighters, the rebels who fought the former Soviet Union and the soldiers of the former Soviet Union itself. The decimation of the tribes has left Afghan society largely atomized.

Afghan and American officials hope that the plan to make peace with groups of Taliban fighters will complement an American-led effort to set up anti-Taliban militias in many parts of the country: the Pashtun tribes will help fight the Taliban, and they will make deals with the Taliban. And, by so doing, Afghan tribal society can be reinvigorated.

“We’re trying to put pressure on the leaders, and at the same time peel away their young fighters,” said an American military official in Kabul involved in the reconciliation effort. “This is not about handing bags of money to an insurgent.”

The Afghan reconciliation plan is intended to duplicate the Awakening movement in Iraq, where Sunni tribal leaders, many of them insurgents, agreed to stop fighting and in many cases were paid to do so. The Awakening contributed to the remarkable decline in violence in Iraq.

In the autumn of 2001, during the opening phase of the American-led war in Afghanistan, dozens of warlords fighting for the Taliban agreed to defect to the American-backed rebels. As in Iraq, the defectors were often enticed by cash, sometimes handed out by American Army Special Forces officers.

At a ceremony earlier this month in Kabul, about 70 insurgents laid down their guns before the commissioners and agreed to accept the Afghan Constitution. Some of the men had fought for the Taliban, some for Hezb-i-Islami, another insurgent group. The fighters’ motives ranged from disillusion to exhaustion.

“How long should we fight the government? How many more years?” said Molawi Fazullah, a Taliban lieutenant who surrendered with nine others. “Our leaders misled us, and we destroyed our country.”

Like many fighters who gave up at the ceremony, he shrouded his face with a scarf and sunglasses, for fear of being identified by his erstwhile comrades.

The Americans say they have no plans to give cash to local Taliban commanders. They say they would rather give them jobs.

In a defense appropriations bill recently approved by Congress, lawmakers set aside $1.3 billion for a program known by its acronym, CERP, a discretionary fund for American officers. Ordinarily, CERP money is used for development projects, but the language in the bill says officers can use the money to support the “reintegration into Afghan society” of those who have given up fighting.

For all the efforts under way to entice Taliban fighters to change sides, there will always be the old-fashioned approach: deadly force. American commanders also want to squeeze them; such is the rationale behind Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s request for tens of thousands of additional American troops.

Indeed, sometimes force alone does the trick. On Oct. 9, American Special Forces soldiers killed Ghulam Yahia, an insurgent commander believed responsible for, among other things, sending several suicide bombers into the western city of Herat. Mr. Yahia had changed sides himself in the past: earlier in the decade, he was Herat’s mayor.

When the Americans killed Mr. Yahia, in a mountain village called Bedak, 120 of his fighters defected to the Afghan government. Others went into hiding. Abdul Wahab, a former lieutenant of Mr. Yahia’s who led the defectors, said that the Afghan government had so far done nothing to protect them or offer them jobs. But he said he was glad he had made the jump anyway.

“We are tired of war,” he said. “We don’t want it anymore.”

Sangar Rahimi and Taimoor Shah contributed reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan.

Correction: November 28, 2009

A previous version of this article said that Gul Agha Shirzai was the governor of Jalalabad. He is governor of Nangarhar Province.

Memberi Atau Menerima Suap Sama Sama Di Neraka

Assalamualaikum Wr Wb

Bissmillahirrohmaan irrohiim

“Dan janganlah sebahagian kamu memakan harta sebahagian yang lain di antara kamu dengan jalan yang batil dan (janganlah) kamu membawa (urusan) harta itu kepada hakim, supaya kamu dapat memakan sebahagian daripada harta benda orang lain itu dengan (jalan berbuat) dosa, padahal kamu mengetahui.” QS. Al Baqarah (2) : 188.

Memberi uang suap kepada qadhi atau hakim agar ia membungkam kebenaran atau melakukan kebatilan merupakan suatu kejahatan. Sebab perbuatan itu mengakibatkan ketidakadilan dalam hukum, penindasan orang yang berada dalam kebenaran serta menyebarkan kerusakan di bumi. Allah Subhanahu wata’ala berfirman :

Dalam sebuah hadits marfu’ riwayat Abu Hurairah disebutkan : “Allah melaknat penyuap dan penerima suap dalam (urusan) hukum” (HR Ahmad, 2/387; shahihul jami’ : 5069).

Saat ini, suap menyuap sudah menjadi kebiasaan umum, bagi sebagian pegawai, suap menjadi income / pemasukan yang hasilnya lebih banyak dari gaji yang mereka peroleh. Untuk urusan suap menyuap banyak perusahaan dan kantor yang mengalokasikan dana khusus. Berbagai urusan bisnis atau mua’malah lainnya, hampir semua dimulai dan di akhiri dengan tindak suap. Ini tentu sangat tidak menguntungkan bagi orang-orang miskin. Karena adanya suap, undang-undang dan peraturan menjadi tak berguna lagi. Soal suap pula yang menjadikan orang yang berhak diterima sebagai karyawan digantikan mereka yang tidak berhak.

Dalam urusan administrasi misalnya, pelayanan yang baik hanya diberikan kepada mereka yang mau membayar, adapun yang tidak membayar, ia akan dilayani asal-asalan, diperlambat, atau diahirkan. Pada saat yang sama, para penyuap yang datang belakangan, urusannya telah selesai sejak lama.

Karena soal suap menyuap, uang yang semestinya milik mereka yang bekerja, bertukar masuk kedalam kantong orang lain, disebabkan oleh hal ini, juga hal yang lain maka tak heran jika Rasulullah Shallallahu’alaihi wasallam memohon agar orang-orang yang memiliki andil dalam urusan suap menyuap semuanya dijauhkan dari rahmat Allah.

Dari Abdullah bin Amr Radhiallahu' anhu bahwasanya Rasulullah Shallallahu’alaihi wasallam bersabda: “Semoga laknat Allah atas penyuap dan orang yang disuap” (HR Ibnu Majah, 2313; shahihul jam’ : 5114).

Nasehat : Syaikh Muhammad Shalih Al Munajjid, Sumber Dosa Dosa yang dianggap biasa

Russia and China Endorse Agency’s Rebuke of Iran

By HELENE COOPER and WILLIAM J. BROAD

Published: November 27, 2009

WASHINGTON — The United Nations nuclear watchdog demanded Friday that Iran immediately freeze operations at a once secret uranium enrichment plant, a sharp rebuke that bore added weight because it was endorsed by Russia and China.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the I.A.E.A., left, listened to Glyn Davies, the American ambassador to the United Nations agency, as the group's governing board met in Vienna on Friday.

The governing body of the watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, meeting in Vienna, also expressed “serious concern” about potential military aspects of Iran’s nuclear program.

Administration officials held up the statement as a victory for President Obama’s diplomatic efforts to coax both Russia and China to increase the pressure on Iran. They said that they had begun working on a sanctions package, which would be brought before the United Nations Security Council if Iran did not meet the year-end deadline imposed by Mr. Obama to make progress on the issue.

“Today’s overwhelming vote at the I.A.E.A.’s Board of Governors demonstrates the resolve and unity of the international community with regard to Iran’s nuclear program,” the White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said in a statement. “Indeed, the fact that 25 countries from all parts of the world cast their votes in favor shows the urgent need for Iran to address the growing international deficit of confidence in its intentions.”

In recent weeks, the Obama administration has been painstakingly wooing Russia and China, the two permanent members of the Security Council most averse to imposing sanctions.

Russia’s president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, has rewarded the administration’s outreach on missile defense with stronger statements signaling more willingness to impose sanctions on Iran. After meeting with Mr. Obama in Singapore earlier this month, Mr. Medvedev said he was not happy about how long it was taking Iran to respond to an offer to move its enriched uranium out of the country for further processing, adding that “other measures” might have to be considered.

Persuading China has, so far, proven more difficult. After meeting with Mr. Obama in Beijing, China’s president, Hu Jintao, said nothing about additional pressure on Iran.

But administration officials said that behind the scenes they had been working hard to get China on board, and expressed hope that those efforts would pay off. Before Mr. Obama traveled to Beijing this month, the United States sent two senior National Security Council officials, Jeff Bader and Dennis Ross, to China to make a personal case for why the United States was so concerned about Iran’s nuclear program, administration officials said.

Iranian officials insist that the nation’s nuclear program is for nuclear energy, although many nations believe Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said China’s support on Iran and its decision to set a climate change goal on Thursday showed that Mr. Obama’s trip to Beijing was producing results despite criticism of the visit. “This is the product of engagement,” Mr. Emanuel said, adding that it was “a direct result” of the trip.

But even as the United States and its Western allies were exulting over the step by an agency often accused of being too soft on Iran, administration officials and foreign policy experts cautioned that the largely symbolic resolution was a long way from meaningful sanctions from the Security Council.

Indeed, although the resolution approved on Friday in Vienna is the first time that the I.A.E.A.’s board has demanded an immediate halt to construction of the Iran uranium enrichment facility at Qum, it falls short of the diplomatic step of finding Iran in formal “noncompliance” or violation of its nonproliferation commitments, which would provide strong evidence to bolster the drive for a new round of sanctions.

Administration officials and Western diplomats were still holding out hope, however slim, that a negotiated deal with Iran before the end of the year may be possible.

For one thing, even if Russia and China do end up agreeing to additional sanctions, such measures have so far had little effect on Iran’s behavior.

Beyond that there is the Israeli government’s running threat, or bluff, that it may take military action against Iran in 2010 if negotiations fail — an action that could provoke Iranian retaliation against United States troops in neighboring Afghanistan.

The proposal to ship Iran’s uranium out of the country, where it would be processed into nuclear fuel for use in a medical reactor in Tehran, “is still on the table,” a senior administration official said Friday. But, he added, “time is running short.”

The demand by the I.A.E.A. board for the immediate suspension of construction at the Qum enrichment plant was the first time it had made such a demand of Tehran. Iran has told the agency that it plans to complete the half-built facility, which is tunneled into the side of a mountain, by 2011.

The vote was 27 in favor, 3 against and 5 abstentions. China and Russia voted for the rebuke.

Iran’s nuclear efforts involve hundreds of sites, programs and planned facilities. The closest the international agency’s board had previously come to demanding a halt to the establishment of a new plant came in 2006 when it requested that Iran “reconsider the construction” of a nuclear reactor at Arak. Western experts fear that Iran could use the Arak reactor, on which it continues to work, to make plutonium fuel for nuclear warheads.

Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a private group based in Washington, called the resolution “the appropriate censure” given the Qum disclosure. “The revelation has led to an important shift in opinion at the board and probably at the Security Council,” he said. “Patience with Iran is running out and, more importantly, Qum severely undercuts Iran’s claims that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.”

The resolution was the first against Iran by the agency’s 35-nation Board of Governors since February 2006. At that time, the board criticized Iran’s “many failures and breaches of its obligations” to inform the agency of its nuclear activities, as well as its defiance in ignoring calls for the suspension of uranium enrichment.

Helene Cooper reported from Washington, and William J. Broad from New York.

Mendulang Mutiara Hikmah Perjalanan Hidup Nabi Ibrahim ‘alaihi...

Dalam masa 23 tahun, Rasulullah s.a.w. mengajak penyembah berhala, kaum Yahudi dan orang-orang Nasrani kepada tauhid yang murni dengan dakwahnya yang mantap.

Tidak pernah tersembunyi suaranya, dan tidak pernah hilang gemanya, namun mereka tetap menuduh atau berpendapat bahawa Rasulullah meremehkan akal mereka dan akan menghancurkan kekuasaan, kewibawaan serta peraturan mereka.

Oleh kerana itu mereka mengumpul kekuatan untuk menghancurkan dakwah Rasulullah s.a.w.

Walaupun mendapat tentangan Rasulullah bertambah berani meneruskan dakwah. Setiap kali mereka memperhebat gangguannya baginda tetap tabah serta bertambah kuat untuk mengatasinya dengan penuh kesabaran.

Kemudian Allah memberi izin berjihad, memerangi mereka maka baginda pun berjihad sampai Allah memberikan kemenangan kepada agamanya. Maka orang yang kelmarin menjadi musuh akhirnya menjadi kawan.

Demikian juga orang yang musyrik berduyun-duyun masuk agama Allah, mereka menjunjung tinggi syiar Allah bahkan mereka menjadi orang yang menyediakan jiwa raga mereka untuk Allah dan RasulNya.

Sabar menerima gangguan kaum musyrik

Rasulullah sabar terhadap gangguan-gangguan orang musyrik dengan ucapan-ucapan mereka yang menusuk hati. Sesungguhnya amat sakit rasanya luka yang ditimbulkan oleh tajamnya ucapan-ucapan yang dilontarkan mereka.

Apalagi dalam masyarakat yang amat mendambakan pujian dan nama baik dan sangat benci kepada celaan dan ejekan.

Rasulullah s.a.w. pada permulaan dakwahnya ingin sekali dipercayai oleh kaumnya untuk mengangkat mereka dari lembah kesesatan ke puncak hidayah dan petunjuk Allah dan dari buta agama kepada mengerti akan kebenaran.

Memang baginda telah dikenal oleh kaumnya sebagai seorang yang berakal, bijaksana, benar, dapat dipercaya dan iffah. Mereka belum pernah mendengar baginda berdusta dan belum pernah pula mereka menemukan sifat yang buruk.

Namun orang-orang musyrik menentang dan melawan yang benar. Mereka takbur dan enggan meninggalkan cara hidup nenek moyang mereka.

Mereka sengaja membuat-buat dusta bahkan mereka menuduh Rasulullah s.a.w. sebagai seorng yang bermimpi, banyak angan-angan, menceritakan apa yang dikhayalkannya dan yang dilihat dalam mimpinya.

Mereka melemparkan tuduhan-tuduhan yang jahat kepada baginda, dengan cara-cara yang biasa diucapkan oleh penyair-penyair mereka yang penuh berisi khayalan yang sangat mahir melebih-lebihkan sesuatu dan pandai mempengaruhi orang awam. Mereka mengatakan bahawa baginda seorang gila, padahal baginda adalah orang yang paling cerdas dan paling berakal di antara mereka.

Allah SWT berfirman yang bermaksud:

Bahkan mereka berkata (pula) (Quran itu adalah) mimpi yang kalut, malah diadakannya bahkan dia sendiri seorang penyair, maka dia mendatangkan kepada kita suatu mukjizat, sebagaimana Rasul-Rasul yang telah lalu diutus. (Al-Anbiya: 5)

Allah SWT berfirman bermaksud:

Dan mereka berkata: Apakah sesungguhnya kami harus meninggalkan sembahan-sembahan kami kerana seorang penyair. (AshShaffat: 36)

Allah SWT berfirman bermaksud:

Bahkan mereka mengatakan dia adalah seorang penyair yang kami tunggu-tunggu kecelakaan menimpanya. (AthThuar:30)

Maksudnya kami menunggu-nunggu kecelakaan baginya semoga dia ditimpa bahaya atau mati sehingga kami selamat daripadanya.

Allah SWT berfirman bermaksud:

Mereka berkata: Hai orang yang diturunkan Al Quran kepadanya, sesungguhnya kamu benar-benar orang yang gila. (Al Hilr:6)

Tetapi Allah telah membersihkan Rasulullah dari tuduhan yang bermacam-macam yang buruk itu dengan FirmanNya yang bermaksud: Dan Al Quran itu bukanlah perkataan seorang penyair, sedikit sekali kamu beriman kepadanya. Dan bukan pula perkataan tukang tenung, sedikit sekali kamu mengambil pelajaran daripadanya. (Al-Haaqqah 41-42)

Allah SWT berfirman bermaksud:

Demi Qalam dan apa yang mereka tulis, berkat nikmat Tuhan kamu Muhammad sekali-kali bukan orang gila. (Al Qalam:1-2)

Ramai orang musyrik yang mengganggu Rasulullah dan menyakiti baginda dengan perbuatan-perbuatan jahat disebabkan kemarahan, kehilangan akal, dan kebodohan mereka.

Mereka hendak menghalang-halangi baginda dari agama Allah. Supaya putus asa dari keberhasilan perjuangannya dan supaya para pengikutnya meninggalkan baginda. Walaupun demikian baginda tetap menghadapi perbuatan mereka yang jahat itu dengan kesabaran yang dapat membawanya kepada kemenangan.

Dengan tabah dan bijaksana dapat mengalahkan kebodohan dan menggagalkan tujuan mereka.

Kesabarannya yang luhur ini cukup menjadi tanda bahawa Rasulullah adalah benar dalam menyampaikan risalah dari Tuhannya. Keraja jika tidak demikian baginda tidak akan tahan menderita dalam menghadapi permusuhan mereka, sedang baginda tidak pernah menginginkan kekayaan harta benda.

Oleh kerana itu berduyun-duyunlah orang-orang memeluk agama Islam, baik secara peribadi mahupun berkumpulan.

Mereka pun berani menderita dalam menghadapi gangguan-gangguan orang musyrik dengan keberanian dan ketabahan yang luar biasa bahkan mereka dengan sukarela membela Rasulullah. Mengorbankan segala sesuatu demi untuk menghadapi tentangan musuh-musuhnya.

Taliban Open Northern Front in Afghanistan

KUNDUZ, Afghanistan — Far from the heartland of the Taliban insurgency in the south, this once peaceful northern province was one place American and Afghan officials thought they did not have to worry about.

This month, an Afghan police officer patrolled Baluchai Alchin, near Kunduz, Afghanistan. NATO and Afghan troops recently fought insurgents around Kunduz.

Afghan officials cut the police force here by a third two years ago and again earlier this year. Security was left to a few thousand German peacekeepers. Only one Afghan logistics battalion was stationed here.

But over the last two years the Taliban have steadily staged a resurgence in Kunduz, where they now threaten a vital NATO supply line and employ more sophisticated tactics. In November, residents listened to air raids by NATO forces for five consecutive nights, the first heavy fighting since the Taliban were overthrown eight years ago.

The turnabout vividly demonstrates how security has broken down even in unexpected parts of Afghanistan. It also points to the hard choices facing American, NATO and Afghan officials even if President Obama decides to send more soldiers to Afghanistan, as he is expected to announce next week.

Even under the most generous deployments now under consideration, relatively few additional troops are expected in the north; most will be directed to the heartland of the Taliban resistance in the south and east.

Afghan and international officials say security never had to deteriorate so badly here. The Taliban were a scattered and defeated force in northern Afghanistan, long home to the strongest anti-Taliban resistance, the Northern Alliance.

But the government, and American military trainers, failed to remain vigilant to signs of Taliban encroachment, and reduced deployments in the northern provinces in order to bolster other, more volatile regions.

The decisions created vulnerabilities as Kunduz became a target with the opening of a new logistics route here for NATO supplies from Russia and Central Asia, over an American-financed bridge that opened in 2007. The route is supposed to serve as a strategic alternative to the treacherous passage through Pakistan, which is regularly attacked by Taliban militants.

Now, the Taliban have re-emerged with such force that during the presidential election in August, police officers were fending off attacks on the outskirts of the city of Kunduz, and militants were poised to overrun the center, officials said.

“The Taliban were at the door of the city; the people thought the government was at an end,” said a senior security official, who asked not to be named because of the nature of his work.

Since then, the threat has been somewhat contained after an operation by NATO and Afghan forces, but the province remains at risk.

Residents of Kunduz said they noticed that the Taliban reappeared in numbers in the region in the spring of last year.

At just that time, under pressure from the American military in charge of training the Afghan security forces, the government of President Hamid Karzai reduced the number of police officers in Kunduz to just 1,000 from 1,500, officials said. Then, earlier this year, the Interior Ministry ordered 200 police officers from every northern province to help secure the capital, Kabul, which was suffering increasingly serious attacks from insurgents.

A district like Khanabad, with a population of 350,000, has just 80 police officers now, the governor of Kunduz, Muhammad Omar, said in an interview. In the district of Chahardara, where hundreds of insurgents are at large, there are only 56 police officers, enough only to guard the district center and the main road.

“It deteriorated suddenly,” the governor said. “The first reason is that we have very few police in Kunduz considering the strategic position of our region, and our police are not able to cover the whole region.”

In fact, after their defeat in 2001, the Taliban never left the region. The insurgents lay low but remained a menace to be constantly watched, according to the former governor of Kunduz, Gen. Muhammad Daoud, now a deputy interior minister.

The Taliban, who are mostly Pashtun, draw natural support through tribal ties with Pashtuns, who make up nearly half of Kunduz’s population. Many of the fighters are local men who fled to Pakistan after 2001 and have returned in the last two years.

Central Asian fighters from a group linked to Al Qaeda, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, who also took refuge in Pakistan have reappeared, Afghan security officials said. Local journalists have seen some of them. The officials, who have captured some of the insurgents, accuse Pakistan’s intelligence agency, Al Qaeda and even Iran of supporting the resurgence. Pakistan and Iran routinely deny supporting the insurgency.

Whether it is the influence of foreign fighters, or the growing capability of the Taliban and another regional militant group, Hezb-e-Islami, Western officials say the insurgency in Kunduz has grown more sophisticated, mounting coordinated suicide car bombings and ambushes.

“Clearly this year we have seen much better fighters, capable of complex attacks,” said one Western official.

China Joins U.S. in Pledge of Hard Targets on Emissions

By EDWARD WONG and KEITH BRADSHER

Published: November 26, 2009

BEIJING — The Chinese government announced Thursday that it had set a target to slow the growth of its greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, a day after the Obama administration set a provisional target for reducing United States emissions.

The Chinese offer, which focuses on energy efficiency, contrasts with the strategy of the United States and most other nations to reduce total emissions. China has resisted demands from American and European negotiators to adopt binding limits on its emissions, arguing that environmental concerns must be balanced with economic growth and that developed countries must first demonstrate a significant commitment to reducing their own emissions.

With its enormous population and breathtaking pace of economic development, China surpassed the United States two years ago as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

It was unclear whether the timing of China’s announcement was coincidental, though the Chinese have been preparing an opening position ahead of international talks on climate change in Copenhagen next month. In the past, Beijing has tried to avoid looking as if it has been directly influenced by American decisions.

A senior Obama administration official said that the United States had pressed hard for a public commitment from China and was relieved that it had delivered. But the official, who spoke anonymously because of the delicacy of the matter, called the carbon intensity figure “disappointing,” and said that the administration hoped it represented a gambit that would be negotiated upward at Copenhagen or in subsequent talks.

The Chinese propose, by 2020, to reduce so-called carbon intensity — or the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of economic output — by 40 to 45 percent compared with 2005 levels. By that measure, emissions would still increase, though the rate would slow. That falls far short of what many in Europe and other nations had hoped for — an increase in energy efficiency of at least 50 percent.

Analysts said the Chinese offer might take some of the pressure off the United States, which is offering to reduce the total tonnage of its greenhouse gas emissions “in the range of” 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. But now China seems to be offering almost no deviation from its business-as-usual path, a more troubling development to some.

In a sense, the Chinese offer is less ambitious than the American proposal because China is already well on the way to its target with existing energy efficiency initiatives, while the American offer would require changes in many government policies. American efforts, though, have been mired in Congressional infighting.

Yet the offers by the United States and China both amount to politically safe opening bids in what is likely to be a long, tough process of negotiations on concrete steps that the two countries should take to address climate change.

How that will play out in Copenhagen, where nations will negotiate terms for a post-2012 treaty on reducing emissions, or in follow-up sessions next year, is unclear.

President Obama discussed climate change with Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, when the two met in Beijing on Nov. 16. Officials from the two countries were in talks on the issue under President George W. Bush, but Mr. Obama earlier this year made climate change a top priority in diplomacy between the governments.

China’s arguments about balancing environmental concerns with economic growth resonate with other developing countries like India, and both countries propose slowing the growth of emissions relative to the growth of their economies.

The target announced Thursday “is not so low that China can get to it easily without actual effort, nor is it too high to believe,” said Jin Jiaman, executive director of the Global Environmental Institute, an advocacy group based in Beijing.

China, India and the United States are expected to be crucial players among the 190 or so nations at the meetings in Copenhagen. Leaders have said they do not expect to come to a firm agreement there.

The State Council, China’s cabinet, said Thursday that fixing the target for 2020 was a “voluntary action” taken by the Chinese government “based on our own national conditions,” according to the state-run news agency Xinhua. Chinese officials also announced Thursday that Prime Minister Wen Jiabao would attend the Copenhagen talks.

Michael A. Levi, director of the climate change program at the Council on Foreign Relations, called the target announcement disappointing because it did not move the country much faster along the path it was already on.

“The Department of Energy estimates that existing Chinese policies will already cut carbon intensity by 45 to 46 percent,” Mr. Levi said. “The United States has put an ambitious path for emissions cuts through 2050 on the table. China needs to raise its level of ambition if it is going to match that.” Some environmental advocates have also said that the substance of Mr. Obama’s announcement on Wednesday was weak as well.

Ahead of Copenhagen, China has been trying to deflect criticism by showing that it can make commitments to battling climate change. In September, Mr. Hu said at the United Nations that China would slow its emissions growth by 2020, but drew some criticism by not giving a target at the time.

Both Washington and Beijing face domestic pressure from business and political constituencies pressing their governments not to make energy and environmental pledges that could limit economic growth during a recession. Members of Congress made it abundantly clear to the Obama administration that they would not approve any treaty that did not include a firm promise from major developing countries, particularly China and India, to at least slow the growth of emissions.

Meanwhile, the two countries have come under increasing pressure from European and other nations to bring some sort of commitment to the Copenhagen talks or risk their total collapse. Officials in China and the United States waited until just two weeks before the start of the conference before putting their offers on the table.

Some analysts said China might be unwilling to make larger commitments until Congress passed stalled legislation on emissions reduction targets.

The figures released by the White House on Wednesday were based on targets specified by legislation that passed the House in June but is stalled in the Senate. Congress has never enacted legislation that includes firm emissions limits or ratified an international global warming agreement with binding targets.

“China is in a more comfortable negotiating position,” Yang Ailun, the climate and energy campaign manager for Greenpeace China, said earlier this month. “In fact, every country is in a more comfortable negotiating position than the U.S. right now.”

Edward Wong reported from Beijing, and Keith Bradsher from Hong Kong. John M. Broder contributed reporting from Washington, James Kanter from Brussels and Jonathan Ansfield from Mequon, Wis. Zhang Jing contributed research from Beijing.

Top 10 Reasons to SMILE..

1. Smiling Makes Us Attractive

We are drawn to people who smile. There is an attraction factor. We want to know a smiling person and figure out what is so good. Frowns, scowls and grimaces all push people away -- but a smile draws them in.

2. Smiling Changes Our Mood

Next time you are feeling down, try putting on a smile .. �There's a good chance you mood will change for the better. Smiling can trick the body into helping you change your mood.

3. Smiling Is Contagious

When someone is smiling they lighten up the room, change the moods of others, and make things happier. A smiling person brings happiness with them. Smile lots and you will draw people to you.

4. Smiling Relieves Stress

Stress can really show up in our faces. Smiling helps to prevent us from looking tired, worn down, and overwhelmed. When you are stressed, take time to put on a smile. The stress should be reduced and you'll be better able to take action.

5. Smiling Boosts Your Immune System

Smiling helps the immune system to work better. When you smile, immune function improves possibly because you are more relaxed. Prevent the flu and colds by smiling.

6. Smiling Lowers Your Blood Pressure

When you smile, there is a measurable reduction in your blood pressure. Give it a try if you have a blood pressure monitor at home. Sit for a few minutes, take a reading. Then smile for a minute and take another reading while still smiling. Do you notice a difference?

7. Smiling Releases Endorphins, Natural Pain Killers and Serotonin

Studies have shown that smiling releases endorphins, natural pain killers, and serotonin. Together these three make us feel good. Smiling is a natural drug.

8. Smiling Lifts the Face and Makes You Look Younger

The muscles we use to smile lift the face, making a person appear younger. Don't go for a face lift, just try smiling your way through the day -- you'll look younger and feel better.

9. Smiling Makes You Seem Successful

Smiling people appear more confident, are more likely to be promoted, and more likely to be approached. Put on a smile at meetings and appointments and people will react to you differently.

10. Smiling Helps You Stay Positive

Try this test: Smile. Now try to think of something negative without losing the smile. It's hard.. When we smile our body is sending the rest of us a message that "Life is Good!" Stay away from depression, stress and worry by smiling.

The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009)

Abstinence Makes the Heart ... Oh, You Know

By MANOHLA DARGIS

Published: November 20, 2009

The big tease turns into the long goodbye in “The Twilight Saga: New Moon,” the juiceless, near bloodless sequel about a teenage girl and the sparkly vampire she, like, totally loves. When last we saw Bella (Kristen Stewart) and her pretty dead guy, Edward (Robert Pattinson), in “Twilight” — the series hadn’t been saga-fied yet — the two had pledged their troth, a chaste commitment solidified during moody walks in the woods, some exhilarating treetop scrambling and a knockdown fight with a pack of vamping vampires.

But love is cruel and sometimes so too are multivolume juggernauts like Stephenie Meyer’s “Twilight” series, which, because they need a prolonged shelf life, are as much about narrative delay (and delay) as release and resolution. That’s particularly the case here given that Edward belongs to a stylish vampire clan that has given up human blood in order to live, if conspicuously out of place, in a Washington town called Forks. Abstinence is the name of this franchise’s clever game — a demographically savvy strategy that the filmmakers exploit with a parade of bared male chests — which is why Edward refuses to stick his teeth in Bella’s unsullied neck, despite her increasingly feverish pleading.

The problem, already evident in the first movie, is that a vampire who doesn’t ravish young virgins or at least scarily nuzzle their flesh isn’t much of a vampire or much of an interesting character, which initially makes Edward’s abrupt and extended disappearance from the second film seem like a good idea. “New Moon” opens with a seemingly content Bella turning 18, a happy occasion that takes a frightening turn during a party at Edward’s house. While the rest of the vampires ghoulishly beam at her with their amber cat eyes, Bella accidentally pricks her finger while opening a gift, sending a drop of blood onto the carpet and one of the less-repressed vampires, Jasper (Jackson Rathbone), into a violent frenzy.

Edward saves Bella, but soon decides to split town. Dead or alive, men can be brutes (authors too): he also tells her that she’s not good for him, leaving her bereft. This act of cruelty throws her into a long depression that the director Chris Weitz (“The Golden Compass,” “About a Boy”), having taken the filmmaking reins from the sloppier if more energetic Catherine Hardwicke, tries to translate into cinematic terms, mostly by circling Bella with the camera as the months melt away. Ms. Stewart’s darkly brooding looks are convincing, but her lonely-girl blues soon grow wearisome, as does the spinning camera. Happily, there’s another attractive diversion in the wings in the form of her friend Jacob (Taylor Lautner), a member of a mysterioso Indian tribe, who brightens her mood with his blindingly white smile.

Jacob has secrets of his own that soon emerge, first in the form of some massive biceps. My, what big muscles you have, Bella tells him, nicely exposing her inner wolf. Alas, Bella, whose palpable hunger for Edward gave the first movie much of its energy and interest, has been tamped down for “New Moon,” partly because she’s in mourning, though largely because a ravenous female appetite wouldn’t work with this story’s worldview. (Melissa Rosenberg’s screenplay is dutifully subservient to the source material.) So, while Jacob’s body grows harder and harder before Bella’s widening eyes, she looks — mirroring the audience’s appreciative gaze — but doesn’t at first touch. Even when they start fixing up some old motorcycles, hands brushing and engines gunning, the relationship remains safely in neutral.

Bella, of course, belongs to Edward, who, though physically gone, hasn’t left the picture. Every so often he materializes in hazy, semi-transparent form to caution her about something, much as Woody Allen’s fictional mother does when she nags from the sky in “New York Stories.” Realizing that her vampire has gone guardian angel on her, Bella, like a classic crazy ex, begins throwing herself into ever more dangerous situations to summon him. Although this perks up the slack proceedings, the spectral image of Edward only underscores how damaging it is to separate Romeo from Juliet, even if there’s a hormonally revved-up teenage wolf lurking in the shadows. Chastity is only hot, after all, when it seems like it actually might be violated.

There’s more — the book is another doorstopper — crammed between the weeping and dolorous gazes, including a pack of snarling, not terribly effective CGI wolves. They’re amusing if not as diverting as either Dakota Fanning or Michael Sheen, who pop up in a late-act detour to Italy, where the vampires, unlike their puritanical American cousins, still like to drink. (In a rare moment of narrative wit, Bella flies Virgin.) Mr. Sheen, who’s carved out a twinned specialty playing Tony Blair (in three movies) and vampires (four), preens with plausible menace. But it’s Ms. Fanning, with the cruel eyes and sleekly upswept hair suggestive of an underage dominatrix, who shows real bite. Mr. Weitz doesn’t know what to do with her, but when she smiles, you finally see the darker side of desire.

“The Twilight Saga: New Moon” is rated PG-13. (Parents strongly cautioned.) Some bared fangs, little blood, no sex.

THE TWILIGHT SAGA

New Moon

Opens on Friday nationwide.

Directed by Chris Weitz; written by Melissa Rosenberg, based on the novel “New Moon” by Stephenie Meyer; director of photography, Javier Aguirresarobe; edited by Peter Lambert; music by Alexandre Desplat; production designer, David Brisbin; produced by Wyck Godfrey and Karen Rosenfelt; released by Summit Entertainment. Running time: 2 hours 10 minutes.

WITH: Kristen Stewart (Bella Swan), Robert Pattinson (Edward Cullen), Taylor Lautner (Jacob Black), Ashley Greene (Alice Cullen), Rachelle Lefevre (Victoria), Billy Burke (Charlie Swan), Peter Facinelli (Dr. Carlisle Cullen), Nikki Reed (Rosalie Hale), Kellan Lutz (Emmett Cullen), Jackson Rathbone (Jasper Hale), Anna Kendrick (Jessica), Michael Sheen (Aro) and Dakota Fanning (Jane).

During Visit, Obama Skirts Chinese Political Sensitivities

By MICHAEL WINES and SHARON LaFRANIERE

Published: November 17, 2009

BEIJING — Whether by White House design or Chinese insistence, President Obama has steered clear of public meetings with Chinese liberals, free press advocates and even average Chinese during his first visit to China, showing a deference to the Chinese leadership’s aversions to such interactions that is unusual for a visiting American president.

Mr. Obama held a “town hall” meeting with students on Monday. But the students were carefully vetted and prepped for the event by the government, participants said. And the Chinese authorities, wielding a practiced mix of censorship and diplomatic pressure, succeeded in limiting Mr. Obama’s exposure to a point where a third of some 40 Beijing university students interviewed Tuesday were unaware that he had just met in Shanghai with their peers.

Some students who were aware cast him in terms rarely applied to American leaders, like “rather humble” and “bland.”

“Is America being capricious because their economic difficulties force them to be nicer to China and other countries, or is this a genuine change?” asked Liu Ziqi, 18, a freshman at the University of International Business and Economics. “I don’t know.”

This is no longer the United States-China relationship of old but an encounter between a weakened giant and a comer with a bit of its own swagger. Washington’s comparative advantage in past meetings is now diminished, a fact clearly not lost on the Chinese.

Human rights is the prime example. In 1998, President Bill Clinton staged a nationally broadcast discussion with the president at the time, Jiang Zemin, about human rights, the Dalai Lama and perhaps China’s most taboo topic, the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. In 2002, President George W. Bush stressed liberty, the rule of law and faith in a speech to university students broadcast across China.

When Mr. Obama visited Moscow in July, he met with opposition political activists and journalists, and he publicly questioned the prosecution of an anti-Kremlin businessman.

In China, by contrast, Mr. Obama, in nuanced references to human rights, has shied away from citing China’s spotty record, even when offered the chance. Asked Monday in Shanghai to discuss China’s censorship of the Internet, the president replied by talking about America’s robust political debates.

American scholars and activists, who requested anonymity for fear of damaging relations with the White House, said the administration rejected proposals for brief meetings in Beijing with Chinese political activists, and then with lawyers.

American officials did consider organizing meetings between Mr. Obama and Chinese lawyers, university students in Beijing and Hu Shuli, a well-known Chinese journalist who recently ceded control of Caijing, one of the nation’s most respected and independent magazines. But officials say time constraints, not political considerations, sidelined those options, although the sightseeing agenda remained intact.

One prominent defense lawyer, Mo Shaoping, said Tuesday that an American official called this month to ask if he would meet with Mr. Obama but never called back. “The U.S. should be the safeguard of universal values,” Mr. Mo said, but Mr. Obama “actually didn’t make it a very high priority.”

For its part, the Chinese government made sure Mr. Obama did not bump into protesters by placing well-known activists under tighter security. Chinese Human Rights Defenders, a local organization, said 20 people were detained, placed under house arrest or prohibited from traveling before Mr. Obama’s visit.

Zhang Zuhua, once a Communist Party official and now among China’s most influential civil rights activists, said that additional police officers were watching his apartment and that he had been warned to avoid political activity.

Mr. Zhang expressed concern over what he called America’s growing reluctance to criticize China on human rights, saying “the Communist Party can pay even less regard to it and tighten up.”

But an alternative explanation for Mr. Obama’s comparatively low profile here, curiously, is the very insecurity of China’s autocratic government.

In contrast to Mr. Jiang, who sparred openly with President Clinton over human rights, President Hu Jintao is a cautious politician whose tenure has been marked by an obsession with stability. In Mr. Obama’s case, for example, Chinese officials hamstrung negotiations over items like the national broadcast of Shanghai’s town hall meeting until they achieved most of their objectives to limit its exposure.

In China, Mr. Obama does not enjoy the matinee-idol status that has followed him elsewhere. But the Chinese are curious about the young president, and in some cases, they clearly find him a refreshing contrast to their own retirement-age, shoe-black-haired leadership.

A topic of awe on Chinese chat sites this week was the image of Mr. Obama descending from Air Force One into rainy Shanghai, holding his own umbrella, without an aide’s assistance.

In a Nov. 11 Internet poll, people were asked to say what was most memorable about Mr. Obama. A majority noted his Nobel Peace Prize. No. 2, improbable to foreigners, was a Chinese report that the president had insisted on paying for his own hamburger at a Washington restaurant.

In this basketball-crazy nation, Mr. Obama might single-handedly have remade America’s image by showing up on one of the city’s many outdoor courts for a few rounds of hoops. Instead, he tiptoed around fractious issues like human rights, as Chinese authorities took extra steps to ensure that the state media not project any hint of disharmony.

One state newspaper editor said his newsroom now was more tense even than in June, when China passed the 20th anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown.

Late Monday, he said, after a Foreign Ministry official combed over the paper, editors scrapped two articles scheduled for publication on Tuesday, including one straightforward news article on the value of China’s currency.

Mr. Obama’s trip, journalists at the paper joked, “had driven the homeless from Beijing and brought more censorship to China.”

“It’s as if they think he’d read the paper and it would offend him and trigger an international uproar,” the editor said. “As it is now, it would only trigger a snore.”

Edward Wong, Jonathan Ansfield and Xiyun Yang contributed reporting, and Li Bibo and Zhang Jing contributed research.