Posts

Where Trust Lives

Where Trust Lives

 

 

یہ مضمون اردو میں پڑھیں

I once shared a frustration with him that I suspect many people carry quietly. “It feels like nothing is in my control,” I said. I began listing what was bothering me: people making decisions I disagreed with, family members behaving differently than I wished, friends not responding as I expected, situations unfolding contrary to my plans, the economy, the news, the future. By the time I finished, I felt even more overwhelmed than when I had started, as though naming the list had only made it heavier.

He listened patiently, then asked a simple question. “Of all the things you mentioned, how many are actually under your direct control?”

The answer was uncomfortable. Very few. He walked me through a couple of them to make the point concrete. The news, for instance. I did not control what happened in the world, only whether I chose to watch it at midnight and let it follow me into sleep. Even a family member’s behavior, the thing that felt most personal and urgent, was not something I could reach into and adjust. I could only control how I responded, what I said, and what I did next. Item by item, the list I had recited so easily began to look different. Almost none of it belonged to me.

That question has followed me since, because it revealed something I had never fully appreciated. Many of us spend enormous emotional energy trying to manage things outside our control. We worry about them. We obsess over them. We argue about them. We lose sleep over them. Yet despite all that effort, they remain stubbornly beyond our reach.

He explained that this is one of the most common struggles he encounters when speaking with people. On the surface, the complaints often sound different, but their root is usually the same. My spouse won’t change. My children don’t listen. My colleagues don’t understand. My family doesn’t support me. My circumstances aren’t improving. The words differ, but the pain beneath is always the same: something is out of control, and it hurts to admit it.

The surprising part came next. “Your self is under your control,” he said, “and so are your relationships.”

I paused. Relationships? I had expected him to say that only my thoughts and actions were under my control, the usual answer, the one I already half knew. But relationships? He explained what he meant. We cannot control other people, but we can invest in our relationships with them, and that investment often creates something far more powerful than control. Influence.

Most people secretly want influence, but they pursue control instead, and control almost always damages the very relationships in which influence grows.

I thought of a father I once knew who desperately wanted his son to follow a particular path in life, the one he himself had never been able to walk. He pushed hard: strict rules about how the boy spent his evenings, constant comparisons to other children, and long lectures whenever the son showed interest in anything else. The harder the father pushed, the more resistance grew. Arguments increased. Distance grew. Conversations that used to happen easily over dinner became short and guarded. The father worked as hard as he could, yet he lost influence with every passing month instead of gaining it.

Now imagine a different approach. The parent continues to guide, advise, and set boundaries where appropriate. But also invests deeply in the relationship itself: listening, understanding, showing respect, building trust, and creating emotional safety. Years later, when the child faces a difficult decision, whose voice is most likely to matter? The voice of the person who controlled them, or the voice of the person they trust? Influence grows where trust exists. Control rarely produces trust.

This is why he emphasized something many people find difficult. Learn to live with disagreement.

At first, that may sound almost passive. Shouldn’t we try to convince people? Shouldn’t we correct them? Shouldn’t we argue for what we believe is right? Sometimes, yes. But the problem isn’t disagreement itself. It is the inability to tolerate it.

Many relationships break down not because people disagree, but because one or both parties conclude that disagreement makes the relationship unsafe. A husband and wife disagree on how to raise their children, and instead of treating it as one more thing two people are working through together, they treat it as evidence that something is wrong between them. Friends disagree politically, and the friendship quietly shrinks around the topic until there is less and less room to talk at all. Siblings disagree about how to care for an aging parent, and years of closeness give way to tension neither of them quite knows how to name. In each case, the disagreement was survivable. What was not survivable was the fear beneath it, the sense that being different from someone meant losing them.

Healthy relationships require a different skill: the ability to say, “I disagree with you, but I still value you.” That sentence may be one of the most important foundations of mature relationships.

I remember a friend who kept an unusually close relationship with his father despite real differences between them, the kind that in most families would have hardened into permanent distance. One day I asked him how they managed it. He smiled. “We stopped trying to win.” I asked what he meant. “We realized that preserving the relationship mattered more to both of us than winning every argument.” That did not mean they abandoned their convictions or pretended to agree when they didn’t. It meant they learned to place the relationship above the need to dominate the conversation, so that being right and being close no longer competed with each other.

That conversation reminded me of something he emphasized repeatedly. Invest in relationships. Not occasionally, not when convenient, but regularly and intentionally.

The word investment is important because investments rarely yield immediate returns. You invest time. You invest attention. You invest patience. You invest understanding, sometimes for years, and it can feel as if nothing is happening at all. Then one day a crisis comes, a conflict emerges, a difficult conversation becomes necessary, and suddenly the trust you built over years is available exactly when you need it.

Trust functions like a savings account. Small deposits accumulate over time: listening when you could have interrupted, being honest when dishonesty would have been easier, keeping commitments, admitting mistakes, showing reliability, and demonstrating goodwill. Each of these is a deposit, made quietly and often without any visible return. I think of the elderly couples who seem able to weather almost anything together, and how their steadiness is rarely the result of a single dramatic act of love. It is usually the result of thousands of small deposits made over decades, most of them too ordinary to remember individually, all of them adding up to a kind of trust that can absorb a real crisis without breaking. Eventually, those deposits become influence.

He made another important point. Not only should we build trust in others, but we should also build trustworthiness within ourselves. That distinction matters. Many people want to be trusted, yet fewer focus on becoming trustworthy. Trustworthiness is built through consistency. Do your actions match your words? Do you keep your promises? Do you act with integrity when no one is watching? Can people rely on you? These questions determine influence far more than intelligence, authority, or charisma ever could.

I once worked with someone who had no formal leadership position, title, or special authority. Yet everyone, including those well above him in rank, quietly sought his opinion before making difficult decisions. Why? Because over the years he had developed a reputation for fairness, honesty, and consistency. He said the same thing to your face as he did behind your back. He admitted when he was wrong just as readily as he pointed out when others were. People trusted him, and that trust became a kind of authority no title could have given him.

This is one of life’s great paradoxes. The more desperately we try to control people, the less influence we often wield. The more we focus on building trust and relationships, the greater our influence tends to be.

Many people believe their influence grows when they become louder, more forceful, more persuasive, and more argumentative. Yet influence often grows through quieter qualities: patience, reliability, empathy, consistency, humility, and trust. This does not mean becoming passive. It does not mean abandoning principles or accepting everything without question. It simply means recognizing where genuine influence comes from. Not coercion. Connection.

As I reflected on our conversation, I realized something uncomfortable. Much of my frustration stemmed from investing heavily in things I could not control while neglecting those I could. I worried about changing people, but spent less time strengthening relationships. I worried about gaining influence, but spent less time becoming trustworthy. I worried about being understood, but spent less time understanding others.

Perhaps that is why his advice felt so practical. If you want greater influence, invest in relationships. If you want stronger relationships, build trust. If you want trust, become trustworthy. None of this guarantees that people will agree with you, that others will change, or that outcomes will be perfect. But it does place your energy where it can make a difference.

And perhaps that is one of the wisest shifts a person can make. Stop trying to control people. Start investing in relationships. Because in the end, influence grows where trust lives.

/0 Comments/by

What Is Mine to Do

What Is Mine to Do

 

 

یہ مضمون اردو میں پڑھیں

The Hardest Part in the Serenity Prayer

I brought the question to him one day because it had been troubling me for a long time. “There’s something about the Serenity Prayer I don’t fully understand,” I said. He looked up, interested. “What is it?”

“I think most people focus on the first two parts,” I replied. “The serenity to accept what cannot be changed and the courage to change what can be changed. But the part that seems most difficult to me is the last one: the wisdom to know the difference. How do we actually know? How do we decide whether something is within our control?”

He smiled. “That is probably the hardest part.” For a moment, he remained silent, then continued. “The difficulty is that we are not always objective when evaluating situations.”

“What do you mean?”

“Our emotional state shapes how we perceive our ability to influence things,” he said. “When we feel strong, confident, and empowered, we often overestimate our control. We think we can fix everything, change people, solve every problem, and overcome every obstacle. And when we feel weak, we do the opposite. We underestimate our ability and convince ourselves that nothing can be changed, even things that are actually within our reach.”

I laughed. “Sometimes we think we control everything, and other times we think we control nothing.”

“Exactly,” he said, leaning forward slightly. “Let’s start with something simple. There are certain things that are directly within your control.”

“Such as?”

“Your thoughts. Your responses. Your decisions. Your actions. Your words. Your effort.”

“That sounds obvious.”

“It sounds obvious,” he replied, “but most people spend surprisingly little time focusing on these things.” He paused. “Now let’s talk about something else. Other people.”

I smiled. “That’s where life gets complicated.”

He laughed. “Yes. That’s where confusion usually begins. People often assume they have more control over others than they actually do.” He paused, then offered an example. “Children. Parents often believe they control their children. But do they really?”

“At least while the children are young,” I said.

“Not exactly,” he replied. “What they control are actions. A child eats because the parent insists. Sleeps because the parent decides. Follows rules because consequences exist. But that is only control of behavior, not of thoughts.” He let that sentence sit for a moment. “Think about it. Even when your child was five years old, you could not control what he believed, what he felt, or what he thought. You could influence those things, but you could never directly control them.”

I sat with that quietly, because it was true. He went on. “As children grow older, this reality becomes more obvious. Suddenly they disagree. They make their own choices. They form their own opinions. And parents become frustrated, because it feels to them as though something has changed, as though the child who once listened without question has somehow slipped out of their hands.” He paused, choosing his words carefully. “But nothing has actually changed. The disagreement, the independence, the private opinions, all of it was there long before it became visible. A small child does not lack a will of his own. He only lacks the strength, the words, and the confidence to make that will known. What grows with age is not the child’s independence. It is only the ability to express what was always there. So, when a parent senses that something has shifted, they are usually right that something looks different. But the underlying truth has not changed at all. It has simply come into view, the way a shape becomes visible once the fog around it clears.” He let that settle for a moment before finishing his thought. “That is when parents discover something that was always true. They were influencing all along, not controlling.”

I thought about several relationships in my life. “Then much of our frustration comes from confusing influence with control.”

He nodded. “A great deal of it.” Then he said something that changed how I thought about responsibility. “Your real circle of control is quite small.”

“That sounds discouraging.”

“It only sounds discouraging because you believe control creates power.”

“Doesn’t it?”

“Not necessarily. You control yourself. Your thoughts, responses, and decisions. Everything else is influence.”

“That’s it?”

“That’s already a lot,” he said. “It will feel like a lot once you start using it.”

He drew an imaginary circle with his hand. “Most people spend their lives in the outer circle—the circle of concerns—what people think, what other people should do, what the economy should do, and what family members should do.”

I laughed. “That sounds familiar.”

“It sounds familiar because that’s where most of us live.” He drew a smaller circle inside the larger one. “But when you focus on what you actually control—your actions, your habits, your responses—something interesting happens. Your influence grows.”

That seemed backward to me. “If my circle of control is smaller, why would my influence be larger?”

He smiled. “People are influenced by character. Think about the people who have influenced you most. Were they constantly trying to control you?”

“No,” I said, and I thought immediately of several names.

“What made them influential, then?”

I thought for a moment. “Their integrity. Their consistency. Their example.”

“Exactly. The more responsibility you take for your conduct, the more credible you become, and credibility creates influence. The irony is that people who spend all their time trying to control others usually lose influence, while those who focus on controlling themselves often gain it.”

For a moment, neither of us spoke. Then I asked another question. “How do I know whether something belongs in my circle of control or my circle of influence?”

He smiled. “Ask yourself a simple question. Can I directly decide this? If the answer is yes, it belongs in your circle of control. If the answer is no, it belongs at best in your circle of influence.”

“That sounds simple.”

“It is simple.”

“Then why is it so difficult?”

He smiled again. “Because, emotionally, we don’t like the answer.” We both laughed. “Think about it,” he continued. “You want someone to appreciate you. Can you make them appreciate you directly?”

“No. I can only influence them.”

“You want your child to make wise choices. Can you make those choices for them?”

“No. I can only guide.”

“Exactly.” He grew thoughtful. “Much of our anxiety stems from trying to carry responsibilities that do not belong to us. We want certainty. We want guarantees. We want complete control over outcomes. We want people to respond exactly as we hope. But life doesn’t work that way.”

“No,” I said quietly. “It doesn’t.”

He nodded. “We are responsible for effort, not outcomes.” That line reminded me of so many spiritual teachings I had encountered over the years. “God never gave us control over everything,” he continued. “He gave us responsibility.” The distinction felt profound, and I sat with it for a while.

As our conversation ended, I found myself thinking again about the Serenity Prayer. For years, I had assumed that serenity and courage were the difficult parts. Now I understood why wisdom sits between them, because without it, we try to change what cannot be changed or surrender what should be changed. Perhaps wisdom begins when we stop asking how to control this situation and start asking instead what is mine to do here. That question quietly returns us to reality.

My thoughts are mine. My actions are mine. My responses are mine. My effort is mine. Other people are not. Outcomes are not. The future is not. Strangely, the clearer we see those boundaries, the lighter life becomes. Not because problems disappear, but because we stop carrying burdens that were never ours to begin with.

 

/0 Comments/by

Empathy Is Not Agreement

Empathy Is Not Agreement

 

 

 

یہ مضمون اردو میں پڑھیں

I asked him a question that had been bothering me for a long time: “If I listen to someone—really listen, let them speak, give them space to express their pain—won’t they assume I agree with them?”

“That’s a real risk,” he said. “And it becomes dangerous if you don’t understand the difference.”

“Between what?” I asked.

“Between empathy and agreement.”

At first, that sounded simple. But the more he spoke, the more I realized how often we confuse the two, and how much damage that confusion causes in families, friendships, and workplaces.

He explained it slowly, as if unwrapping something fragile. “When someone is in pain,” he said, “they are not presenting a balanced argument. They are presenting a perception.”

That distinction stopped me. A person may feel wronged. Betrayed. Overlooked. But what they are expressing is not necessarily reality; it is their interpretation of reality.

“And empathy,” he continued, “is not about validating the interpretation. It is about acknowledging the feeling.”

That was subtle but profound.

It means saying, in essence: “Given how you are seeing this situation, it makes sense that you feel this way.” Not: “You are right in how you are seeing this situation.”

He gave an example that made it unforgettable.

“Imagine a young woman who has just been passed over for a promotion,” he said. “She comes to you and says, ‘It’s because my manager doesn’t like me. It’s discrimination.’”

Two things are happening at once: One: She feels humiliated, angry, and hurt. Two: She has interpreted the situation as deliberate unfairness.

Empathy addresses the first—not the second. You can say: “I can see how deeply this hurts. Anyone in your position would feel crushed.” But that does not mean you are confirming: “Yes, your manager is definitely biased.”

This is where most people slip. They think that if they don’t affirm the person’s narrative, they are being cold. And if they do affirm it, they are agreeing with them. But true empathy is neither cold nor agreement. It is being there for someone.

I raised another concern. “But what if they misunderstand?” I asked. “What if my silence or listening makes them think I agree?”

He nodded. “That can happen. And it will happen.”

There was no attempt to soften the truth.

“People can misinterpret empathy as agreement,” he said. “But that does not mean you abandon empathy.”

That was hard to accept. We all want immediate clarity. Immediate correction. We want to say, “Just so you know, I don’t agree with you.”

But he pointed toward something more patient. “Don’t treat a conversation as the final interaction,” he said.

That changed everything. If I believe this moment is my only chance to correct someone, I will rush. I will argue. I will push. And most likely, I will damage the relationship. But if I understand that conversations unfold over time, that clarity can emerge gradually, then I can afford to listen first. To understand first. To build trust first. And only then, at the right moment, gently introduce perspective.

He warned me about something more subtle: “Debate,” he said, “is often poison in close relationships.”

That felt counterintuitive. Isn’t truth important? Isn’t clarity important?

“Yes,” he said, “but not at the cost of connection.”

He told me a story: “A friend once came to me, furious about a family member who had wronged him. His version of events was full of holes. I could clearly see his role in the conflict. And my first instinct was to point it out.”

“What happened?” I asked.

“He stopped talking to me for three months. Not because I was wrong—but because he came to me for comfort, and I gave him a lecture.”

That story landed hard. When a person is in emotional distress, they are not ready to be corrected. If you try to “fix” their thinking immediately, they will resist. Not because your point is wrong, but because their state is not receptive. And once the interaction turns into a debate, the goal shifts. It is no longer about understanding. It becomes about winning. And when winning enters, relationships bleed.

Then he said something even deeper: “You cannot reform people,” he said. “You can only influence them.”

That sentence carried weight. Because so much of our frustration comes from assuming responsibility for outcomes that are not ours.

We think: I have explained this so many times; why don’t they change? I have shown them the right way; why don’t they follow? And when they don’t, we feel helpless. Irritated. Even betrayed.

But he reframed it. “That frustration,” he said, “comes from thinking you are responsible for changing them.”

I felt exposed. Because that was exactly what I had been doing, quietly, subtly, sometimes even unconsciously. Trying to fix people.

He shared a personal moment. “I lost my temper once with a close family member,” he said. “I had given him advice repeatedly. Kindly. Patiently. Clearly. And he kept making the same mistake.”

His voice softened as he said, “I shouted at him. And later, sitting alone, I realized I wasn’t angry at him. I was angry at myself for believing I could control his growth.”

That was the turning point. When he shifted from ‘I must change him’ to ‘I must contribute positively’, the frustration began to dissolve. Not because the other person changed. But because he stopped carrying a weight that was never his to carry.

He explained it in very clear terms. “My role is to present my understanding with sincerity, kindness, and preparation. After that, what the other person does, that is their journey.”

That does not mean indifference. It means clarity. You still care. You still listen. You still offer perspective. But you do not carry the burden of the outcome.

I thought about more difficult situations. People who move from person to person, seeking validation, distorting facts, even turning others against you. “What about that?” I asked. “What if they twist things and create real harm?”

He didn’t deny the complexity. “Yes,” he said. “That can happen. And it is painful.” Then he told me about someone he once knew. A colleague who spread rumors, played victim, and quietly poisoned relationships. “For months, I wanted to defend myself publicly. To correct every lie. To expose him.”

“What stopped you?”

“I realized that defending myself aggressively would only feed the drama. So, I stayed honest. I stayed consistent. I refused to play his game.”

“And what happened?”

“It took over a year. But eventually, people saw the pattern. Not because I argued, because I didn’t. The truth surfaced on its own.”

He looked at me. “You still operate within your domain. You remain honest. You remain clear. You remain consistent. And you trust that over time, truth has a way of rising. Not always immediately, not always comfortably, but eventually.”

What stayed with me the most was the quiet simplicity of the principle. Empathy is not agreement. Influence is not control. Responsibility is not outcome. If I can hold these distinctions clearly, so much confusion dissolves. I can listen without feeling compromised. I can care without feeling responsible for change. I can speak without turning every conversation into a battleground.

He brought it back to something deeper.

“You are accountable,” he said, “for your intention, your effort, your conduct. Not for another person’s transformation.” He paused and then added, “That belongs to them. And ultimately, to God.” There was no heaviness in his voice. Only peace.

I walked away with a different understanding of what it means to “be there” for someone. It is not about agreeing with them. It is not about correcting them immediately. It is not about fixing them. It is about creating a space where they are heard, without losing your own clarity. And then, gently, patiently, over time… offering something better than agreement.

Offering understanding. And perhaps, if they are ready, a way forward.

/by