A Pyramid is Not a Safe Haven

Through my work, I have noticed a recurring complaint, almost an epidemic of our times: painful loneliness and emotional emptiness. It is not surprising to hear such complaint from singles, especially if they are far from family and loved ones due to work or study. Their hearts are often clinging to the hope that marriage will be the end of their suffering, yearning for companionship after dreary solitude.

However, when I hear the same complaint from those in long-term relationships, even with a house full of children, it is alarming. Its recurrence among different demographics has prompted me to reflect and search for a common underlying trigger. I have noticed that these marriages often operate on a hierarchical dynamic between spouses, characterized by a relationship between higher and lower rank, superior and subordinate. The manifestation of domination varies according to the husband's disposition, but they share a common thread: the husband's sense of superiority, which renders him the authoritative figure, while the wife is bound to obedience in all circumstances.

The issue with hierarchical relationships is that they build a barrier between spouses, creating a purely functional or pragmatic relationship devoid of emotional depth or true companionship. Hearts do not find solace to express their inner feelings, and thus, souls do not find comfort in each other. This kind of closeness requires the removal of inhibitions, allowing the surfacing of one's vulnerabilities without fear of diminishment or humiliation, which is unattainable between a superior and a subordinate. The superior maintains his pride to preserve his authority, while the subdued cannot find comfort in someone who has subdued her.

As we ponder the remarkable Quranic context, we find that God mentions the hierarchical relationship between a man and his wife in the context of the worst marital discord and the greatest emotional estrangement. In the story of Joseph, when talking about Zuleika, Potiphar’s wife, God says: "They both found her master at the door" (Quran 12:25). In portraying the profound depths of their relationship's downfall and the widening gap between them, culminating in betrayal, God uses the term “her master.”

I do not posit that every hierarchical relationship results in betrayal, nor do I assert that all acts of betrayal stem from such relationships. However, I find it noteworthy that God chose to describe hierarchical relationships in the context of betrayal, which surely serves as a sign, perhaps even a caution.

In contrast, when God wished to depict closeness and intimacy in a marital relationship, He used the term "companionship," a word that conveys parity rather than hierarchy. This is evident in His description of the horrors of the Day of Judgment when a person will distance themselves from those closest to them: God says, warning His servants, "On that Day a man will flee from his brother, his mother, his father, his [female] companion, and his children" (Quran 80:34-36). The illustration of deep closeness and the indication of the strength of the marriage bond leaves no room for a master-servant dynamic or a leader-subordinate relationship; rather, they are companions. Conversely, estrangement and distance cannot be mentioned in the same breath as closeness and intimacy. They do not go together: in this dialect, there is no place for a companion or beloved, only for a master and subordinate.

When we discuss parity versus hierarchy in a marital relationship, it signifies an understanding and harmony based on mutual respect and balance, rather than competition and conflict. This parity does not oppose the different roles arising from natural differences; instead, it fundamentally represents human equality. It exists between two individuals united in their humanity, sharing the faculties of intellect and will, which are foundational to divine mandates. Upon these faculties rest decision-making and the management of life and family affairs. They are bonded by their mutual need to find solace in each other, enabling them to complement one another with love and empathy.

Indeed, we have the best example in the life of our Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), in moments of distress, he sought solace with Lady Khadija (may God be pleased with her), saying, 'Cover me, cover me.' Had he viewed her with disdain, he would have been too proud to seek her support in times of need. How could he seek refuge with her at night and then assert dominance over her during the day? Moreover, the Prophet, the Master of the worlds and the refuge of all beings, served his family dutifully at home, as recounted by Lady Aisha (may God be pleased with her).

Notably, at the onset of a hierarchical marital relationship, the man often experiences minimal discomfort. His position at the apex of the pyramid ensures his desires are prioritized, providing him with considerable comfort. Moreover, external friendships fulfil his need for companionship, at least temporarily. Consequently, most of his demands are met. Conversely, the woman typically bears the initial burden, constrained by expectations of obedience and limited freedom in daily activities. In some cases, where her freedom was more restricted in her father's house, marriage might offer some respite, albeit temporarily.

Once the sweetness of marital beginnings fades, if it ever existed, conflicts inevitably arise, gradually wearing down both parties in various ways.

As life unfolds, people may become preoccupied with their own responsibilities or drift apart from friends. With the accumulation of worries and the changes in life's challenges, along with mental and emotional maturity, the need for a sanctuary intensifies and becomes more urgent. In such a scenario, the hierarchical relationship becomes a burden on the soul, offering no outlet, solace, or comfort, thereby widening the gap between the couple. Each may react differently to this strain.

In the case of the woman, perhaps at the beginning of the relationship, she started to open up to her husband and show some vulnerability. For instance, she might cry when hurt, or demonstrate ignorance or incapacity in a matter. If her husband responds with coldness, belittlement, disdain, or any condescending behavior that humiliates her, she soon withdraws into herself, concealing her feelings, making it difficult for her to open up again.

Her withdrawal may stem from other reasons as well, such as excessive commands, repeated conflicts due to unwarranted prohibitions, or intense authoritarianism that forces her to plead or flatter every time she needs to do something, no matter how trivial.

In some cases, the man may present himself as well-mannered and gentle, dutifully fulfilling his familial responsibilities. However, he is quick to notice any fleeting weakness in her or reactions to issues that affect her differently than him. These perceptions could be influenced by upbringing, past experiences, or a differing significance placed on matters by each partner. He then internalizes her weaknesses as intrinsic rather than situational, viewing her responses as irrational. This reinforces his preconceptions about feminine nature, where he perceives emotional dominance to outweigh rationality. Consequently, he tends to generalize from each misunderstood action, deeming women inherently incompetent and intellectually deficient, believing their femininity diminishes their status. He often assumes unilateral control over decisions and matters, frequently withholding information from her and shunning her off.

This dilemma is often compounded by the man's frequent absence from home, a common occurrence in hierarchical relationships where he spends most of his day away from his family. This places the entire burden of household responsibilities on the woman, while he retains the authority to make major decisions. Even if he demonstrates courtesy and kindness, his understanding of the woman's needs and his responsibilities toward her may be limited to providing financial support for shelter and sustenance. His concept of providing her a haven often revolves around these material obligations, overlooking her emotional, affectional, and physical needs. He may neglect to grant her the same rights and consideration he expects for himself, denying her what he deems essential for his own well-being. She might face criticism for not promptly meeting his needs, while his own prolonged absences—whether physical or emotional—are often overlooked, despite being potentially detrimental to his wife. His absence doesn't necessarily entail physically leaving the house; it can also manifest as emotional withdrawal or neglect. Both equally damaging, as rejection constitutes a form of abuse that profoundly wounds the soul.

Day by day, the rift widens, and the woman withdraws further into herself. She feels an increasing sense of loneliness, believing she gives too much of herself and her spirit to the relationship, sacrificing for each family member at her own expense. She receives minimal attention, with neglect of emotional care, lacking the solace of companionship, and the respite of home.

As a certain stage of her life approaches, without any change in the dynamics of the relationship, the gap between her and her husband reaches a point where she loses all hope of reconciliation. Perhaps, she no longer even desire it, having closed her heart to him due to the severity of the pain his absence has caused. She reaches a stage where she cannot bear the loneliness and psychological pressures resulting from the loss of sanctuary and companionship. Thus, she yearns for separation from her husband, preferring the solitude of singledom and the absence of a home with a spouse over continuing in marital life.

People may find it perplexing that she leans towards separation due to loneliness, even though singledom entails both physical and emotional solitude, devoid of sanctuary and companionship. Yet, women often endure the deep pain of losing a spouse entirely more than the pain of his withdrawal while he is still physically present. The loss resulting from non-existence is lighter than the loss of presence, as the latter involves a keen sense of deprivation of what is available yet denied to her despite her intense need. This compounds the feeling of loss with a sense of deprivation and humiliation. The former, however, is the absence of something that never existed, thus not tied to deprivation and humiliation but rather to non-existence. She may contemplate entering another relationship to compensate or reconcile with her life, finding solace in freeing herself from exhausting efforts that diminish her without reward, and finding happiness in her freedom, filling her time with things that bring her joy and satisfy her ambitions. In any case, she is no longer obliged to give her all to someone who keeps her on the margins of his life. Exiting from this marginalization brings her relief from severe torment.

While for the man, as burdens weigh him down and the wheel of life grinds on, his mind matures, emotions crystallize, and his need for a deeper sense of sanctuary grows. Yet, he finds it lacking with his wife and senses that even with friends, near or far, there's something inside him they no longer fulfil. Unaware that he is the cause of his own turmoil, having built his relationship with his wife on hierarchical grounds, he unwittingly erected a barrier between them, depriving himself of the closeness he now craves from her more than ever. He no longer feels capable of sharing his vulnerabilities or seeking solace with her after dominating and withdrawing from her for so long, exacerbating the gap between their minds and souls as they evolved in divergent directions. How can he find sanctuary with her when he chose to place himself at the apex of the pyramid, leaving her at its base? Had he extended a lifeline from the start and lifted her up instead of distancing himself, perhaps over time they would have grown closer and more harmonious. Each would have learned how to care for the other, fostering mutual comfort and intimacy, enabling them to share their deepest inner feelings unburdened and without reservation.

When a man reaches this point, he may not attempt to mend what has been damaged; instead, the gap has widened to a degree that reconciliation seems difficult. At this stage, he might seek solace in another woman, someone who he knows would reject a hierarchical relationship, and whom he complies to treat as an equal. Now, he seeks a partnership with her rather than dominance, and in moments of weariness, he may even temporarily surrender control to her.

Nevertheless, I do not contend that parity alone guarantees sanctuary for both parties. Rather, it forms the bedrock of affection, empathy, and stability upon which a relationship aimed at sanctuary is built. After establishing this parity, there must follow construction and nurturing, perhaps a topic that warrants further elaboration.

Hence, when a man proudly rejects equality in favor of hierarchy, he denies himself an intimate relationship where he could find solace in a wife offering empathy and refuge, lightening his burdens. Similarly, a woman is deprived of a relationship where she could find sanctuary in a husband who supports and eases life’s challenges. How can a hierarchical relationship foster closeness and intimacy? A genuine haven is found in the union of souls, not achieved through notions of superiority and subordination, but through closeness and connection. As Ibn al-Farid eloquently put it:

"It is commendable to show resilience to adversaries,

But it is unbecoming to show anything but vulnerability to the beloved."

Furthermore, the hierarchical structure cannot be justified by claiming that good manners alone suffice to refine a man and prevent him from overstepping in marital relationships. Scholars of mystical disciplines have observed that the love of authority tends to linger in the hearts of the righteous and the minds of the sincere. It is possible for a man to believe he has overcome this desire by avoiding public office, but its true manifestation often occurs within his own home and family. A man may wield tyranny though his authority confined solely to his household.

To conclude, upon deep reflection, we find that the essence of true manhood lies in a man's ability to balance his strength and vulnerability. He should forge a relationship with his wife where he is strong for her, so she can find sanctuary in him, and strong with her, so that he finds sanctuary in her. Never should he be strong over her, alas becoming miserable by her and she by him. This realization may capture the very essence of the virtue referenced in the prophetic saying, "The best of you are those who are best to their families, and I am the best among you to my family."

Please mention the title of the article before commenting

Comment Section