A Fulfilling Life

Delving into the complexities of relationships is one of the most intricate and widely discussed social issues, capturing the thoughts and conversations of many. It becomes particularly pressing for those preparing for marriage, navigating midlife, finding their way after a breakup, or seeking to understand past, present, or future experiences.

Bookshelves and social media are brimming with theories, explanations, advice, and guidance from psychologists, sociologists, religious scholars, and even influencers with diverse experiences. We read, listen, and seek understanding, yet just when we believe we have grasped the concept or come close, the equation shifts with the introduction of a new variable—something previously overlooked, misjudged, or denied

This dynamic is common in many aspects of life, yet marriage holds a unique significance due to its profound impact on the soul, described in the Quran as 'a haven.' Furthermore, it serves as the foundation of the family and social bonds, both essential to a meaningful and fulfilling life.

Many of the ideas presented, grounded in research, studies, and personal experiences, are both practically and rationally sound, offering valuable insights into human nature, communication methods, and problem-solving. Additionally, customs and traditions provide a legacy of valid cumulative experiences. However, the challenge arises when people attempt to confine the concepts of relationships to a specific heritage that may have once served a purpose but has since lost its efficacy or relevance. They may also try to apply a single theory or perspective as if it were a one-size-fits-all solution, positioning themselves as judges over anything that deviates from this standard—often with harsh consequences. The harshest offenses often come from the closest relations.

Another misconception is the belief that a relationship remains fixed and unchanging over time. Human nature is influenced by many factors that interact in varying ways, leading to evolving needs that shape the nature, patterns, purposes, and dynamics of relationships. Consequently, the nature of relationships—encompassing concepts, patterns, needs, purposes, and behaviors—varies not only across different societies and individuals but can also change within the same person as they move through different life stages. This means that what one seeks in a relationship can evolve and develop over the course of one’s life.

Therefore, the assumption that someone entering a new relationship has the same intentions or wants as they did in a previous one is misguided. For instance, if a person remarries after the loss of a spouse, even if the previous relationship was successful and fulfilled its purpose, the new relationship does not necessarily require replicating the same pattern. In fact, the person may accept in the new relationship what they previously rejected or seek something different. Similarly, someone who did not achieve their desired outcome in a past marriage may not necessarily seek in a new relationship what was lacking before; their needs may have changed, and the nature of the relationship may shift according to their current circumstances.

Maintaining a stable, long-lasting relationship between two individuals requires cordiality and compatibility at the outset, followed by growth and flexibility—in type, pace, and direction.

If one partner remains stagnant while the other grows, a rift and separation may occur.

If both partners grow but in different directions, distance and divergence may result.

If their growth rates and pace differ, one may outpace the other, creating a gap.

All these scenarios can lead to the end of the relationship, even if it continues outwardly, as its essence may have faded.

This assumes the relationship begins on an equal footing. However, if there is a disparity from the start, once the initial excitement fades—if it ever existed—anxiety and unrest may ensue. If the difference is in degree, the lagging partner can only catch up if they are the more flexible and faster-growing one, able to meet or at least approach the other, especially if the other partner is supportive and extends a helping hand.

However, if both an initial lag and the failure to catch up are combined, or if one partner’s efforts to close the gap are hindered by the other’s criticism, arrogance, or distance, the inevitable outcome is separation and fragmentation.

Nonetheless, if the disparity lies not in who is ahead or behind but in the fundamental purpose and nature of the relationship, then one or both partners must either abandon their original intentions to find common ground or part ways, with “God providing each of them out of His abundance.” After all, a single structure cannot be built on two disconnected foundations.

Shared purposes can create a type of relationship that addresses key aspects of life, fulfilling the needs of both partners either fully or partially, or meeting one partner’s needs fully while only partially meeting the other’s. However, if the disparity is more profound and significant, the relationship may not have truly existed; it could have been an illusion, as finding true harmony is unlikely in the face of such a deep divide and discord.

It is important to note that this discussion above about disparity pertains to the nature, purpose, growth, and maturity of the relationship itself, rather than academic achievement or job status, unless these factors are directly relevant to the relationship.

To illustrate, consider a situation where one partner enters marriage with the intention of establishing a comprehensive relationship that includes starting a family and sharing all aspects of life. Conversely, the other partner seeks companionship and closeness without focusing on family building. The first partner is prepared to undertake the challenges of building a life together, requiring engagement in various aspects, and if not supported, would bear this burden alone. Meanwhile, the second partner desires solace to escape from past or present difficulties and would struggle with responsibilities they are neither prepared nor willing to take on if forced into such a role.

Unless both partners are fully aware of their own needs, understand their goals clearly, and communicate them honestly and openly—while also being mindful and respectful of the other's needs and intentions—they risk overwhelming themselves and each other with unattainable expectations. Life, in such a case, would become a constant struggle, pulling them in opposite directions. One partner might accuse the other of neglecting responsibilities and harming the relationship, while the other might feel burdened with expectations they cannot fulfill.

It's not about determining who is right or wrong based on how closely their goals align with conventional relationship norms. As long as their intentions do not contradict humane principles or moral laws, neither purpose should be deemed invalid. There is no inherent superiority between different goals; rather, each situation should be evaluated based on its specific circumstances, which can vary greatly due to human nature and external influences, as previously mentioned. The core issue lies in the lack of clarity from the outset—whether this stems from deliberate deception, unawareness of one's own needs, or ignorance of the other's. Had both partners been fully aware of what they were committing to, much of the ensuing struggle could have been avoided.

An example of disparity in growth after an equal beginning might involve a couple who initially share the same goal, such as starting a family and raising children. Once the children are grown and family responsibilities lighten, one partner may wish to move the relationship into a new phase that aligns with their current stage of life, while the other remains fixated on the earlier phase, resisting any transition. Alternatively, a couple may start a relationship seeking companionship without children, but as they age and their capacity for responsibility evolves, one may develop a desire for family, while the other does not. In both cases, this disparity can lead to conflict and eventually separation in one form or another.

The above examples illustrate only two instances of disparity that may emerge at the beginning of a relationship or midway through it. They are intended for clarification, not as an exhaustive account of all possibilities, for the scenarios and purposes are as diverse as people themselves and the changes they undergo, with no limit to their variety.

A prudent person, before embarking on any endeavor, thoroughly assesses the project by considering its needs, capabilities, and requirements, while also allowing room for unforeseen changes. Likewise, those entering a relationship must first cultivate self-awareness, clarity regarding their needs and capabilities, and a clear sense of direction, while maintaining flexibility for unexpected changes. While awareness alone does not guarantee a harmonious marriage or stable relationship, it is an essential first step—a fundamental exercise in reasoning and careful consideration before entrusting the outcome to faith (tawakul). This initial step is crucial for anticipating and mitigating potential complications, aiming for the best possible outcome.

To pursue marriage without such awareness is to wrong oneself and one's partner. Marriage should not be a mere collective, thoughtless social conformity, devoid of any sense of responsibility and lucidity.

In conclusion, attempting to understand and define the nature and dynamics of relationships by confining them to rigid frameworks and fixed rules is an exercise in narrowing a broad spectrum and turning the relative into the absolute—an impossible task. Even at its best, all current and past efforts can only partially describe certain aspects of some relationships, and they may not capture the full picture. Society would benefit greatly from a more tolerant attitude, an acceptance of differences, and a readiness to ease challenges. The core principles we must adhere to are those of ethics and religion, which prevent harm and abuse and ensure that no damage—whether general or specific, public or private—is inflicted. Rigidity and extremism only lead to discord and corruption.

Please mention the title of the article before commenting

Comment Section