Posts

Your Role Is Influence, Not Control

Your Role Is Influence, Not Control

 

 

 

یہ مضمون اردو میں پڑھیں

I said it with a mixture of frustration and disappointment. “I’ve explained this so many times,” I told him. “I’ve tried different approaches. I’ve been patient. I’ve been firm. I’ve reasoned with them. I’ve reminded them. But nothing changes.”

He listened without interrupting.

“I honestly don’t know what else I’m supposed to do,” I said, after waiting for almost a minute.

He remained silent for a moment. It was as though he wanted the question to settle before responding. Then he asked quietly, “What is it that you’re trying to achieve?”

The question seemed too obvious. “I want them to change,” I replied.

He nodded, but instead of responding, he asked another question. “And do you think that is your responsibility?”

I looked at him, slightly puzzled. “What do you mean? If I care about someone, of course I want them to change.”

“I didn’t ask what you wanted,” he said gently. “I asked whether it is your responsibility.”

I wasn’t sure how to answer. Until that moment, I had never separated the two. Caring for someone and wanting them to change had always seemed inseparable. If someone I loved was making poor decisions, wasn’t it natural to feel responsible for helping them become different?

Perhaps he sensed my confusion. “Tell me,” he said, “have you ever changed simply because someone else wanted you to?”

I smiled sheepishly and said, “No.”

“What made you change?” He asked.

I thought for a while. “Usually…” I said slowly, “I changed when I became convinced that I needed to.”

He nodded again. “So the real decision was yours.”

“Yes.”

“And yet,” he continued, “you expect other people to change merely because you have explained something well.”

I laughed quietly. When he put it that way, it sounded surprisingly unreasonable.

He wasn’t suggesting that explanations don’t matter. Of course they do. Advice can illuminate something we have failed to notice. A sincere conversation can open a door that had remained closed. Sometimes another person’s words become the beginning of a profound change. But none of those things actually cause the change. At best, they invite it. That distinction had never been clear to me before.

He seemed to notice the thought forming in my mind. “You can present an idea,” he said. “You can explain it patiently. You can answer questions. You can even become an example of what you are trying to teach. But you cannot decide on another person’s behalf.”

For a while neither of us spoke. As I reflected on his words, something uncomfortable began to surface. The truth was that I wasn’t merely trying to help. I was trying to make sure they changed. Until that moment, I had never admitted that to myself. I had described my efforts as concern, sincerity, or care. And all of those were genuine. But hidden beneath them was another expectation, one I had never questioned. If I explained things clearly enough… If I found the right words… If I remained patient long enough… Surely they would change.

Looking back, I realized that most of my frustration had not come from their behavior. It had come from the gap between my expectation and reality.

He offered an example. “Imagine a father whose son is making poor choices. The father stays awake at night thinking, ‘Perhaps I haven’t explained it well enough. Maybe I need to speak more firmly. Maybe I need one more conversation.'” He paused for a while and then said, “Do you think the father’s desire is wrong?”

“No,” I replied immediately.

“Neither do I,” he said. “His love is real. His concern is real. But if he begins to believe that his son’s transformation depends entirely upon him, love quietly turns into something else.”

“Control?” I offered.

He smiled and said, “Yes.”

The word lingered in my mind. Control rarely announces itself. It often disguises itself as concern. We convince ourselves that we are simply trying to help, while quietly expecting another person to become who we think they should be. When they don’t, disappointment slowly becomes frustration, frustration becomes pressure, and pressure begins to damage the very relationship we were trying to protect.

I sat there thinking about conversations I had repeated over and over again. Each time, I believed I was offering guidance. But each unsuccessful attempt felt strangely personal, as though their decision reflected my own failure. Now I was beginning to understand why.

I had unconsciously taken responsibility for something that had never belonged to me.

He broke the silence. “You can influence people,” he said. “Sometimes deeply. Sometimes for a lifetime. But influence and control are not the same thing.”

I repeated the sentence quietly to myself. Influence… Not control. For the first time, I realized that I had spent years confusing the two. Perhaps that is why I had become so exhausted. Trying to influence someone requires sincerity, wisdom, and patience. Trying to control them requires carrying a burden no human being was ever meant to carry.

As we stood to leave, he said one final thing. “The moment you believe that another person’s change is your responsibility, you begin carrying a weight that does not belong to you.”

I walked away thinking about that. Maybe the deepest form of care is not found in trying to control another person’s journey, but in faithfully offering what we can, while respecting that the journey itself is still theirs.

Until that day, I had believed that caring meant making sure people changed. Now I was beginning to see that caring and controlling are not the same thing.

And perhaps wisdom begins when we finally learn the difference.

/1 Comment/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.

/0 Comments/by

Every Conversation Leaves a Residue

Every Conversation Leaves a Residue

 

 

یہ مضمون اردو میں پڑھیں

I sat there, smiling politely, nodding at the right moments, while something inside me kept tightening. The conversation was flowing easily—too easily. Random topics, jokes, commentary on shows, casual remarks about people who weren’t present. And then, almost imperceptibly, it crossed a line. A name was mentioned. A comment followed. Another joined in. Soon, the tone shifted from observation to judgment, from description to ridicule.

I wasn’t speaking—but I wasn’t leaving either. And that’s where the discomfort lived. Not in what they were saying, but in what I was doing by staying.

We often think moral failure only happens when we actively say or do something wrong. But there is a quieter erosion that happens when we repeatedly place ourselves in conversations that drain our clarity, dull our conscience, and normalize things we know are not right.

Every conversation leaves a residue. Not necessarily on our behavior but on our inner world.

The Qur’an does not warn us only about what our hands do. It reminds us that our hearing, our sight, and our hearts will also be questioned. What we repeatedly listen to reshapes what feels normal. What feels normal slowly reshapes what feels acceptable.

This is why these gatherings are exhausting—not socially, but morally. You leave them feeling heavier, more irritable, less grounded. Not because someone attacked you but because your inner standards were quietly violated.

This is where many sincere people get stuck. You don’t want to participate. You don’t want to preach. You don’t want to appear arrogant. You don’t want to be labeled “too religious,” “too sensitive,” or “too principled.”

So you freeze. You stay silent. You smile. You endure. And then you blame yourself later—for not doing something.

But here’s the shift that changes everything: This is not a test of controlling others. This is a test of owning your presence.

Our instinct, when something feels wrong, is to correct it. “That’s backbiting.” “We shouldn’t  talk like this.” “This isn’t right.”

Sometimes that is necessary. But more often, in social settings, it triggers defensiveness. People don’t hear the principle, they hear judgment. The conversation shuts down, not because they’ve reflected, but because they feel exposed.

The goal is not to win a moral argument. The goal is to protect your inner integrity and keep the door open for influence. That requires wisdom, not force.

Instead of opposing the conversation head-on, try redirecting its gravity. Not by correcting, but by introducing an alternative. A question. A reflection. A neutral reframe.

For example: “I was thinking about something I heard recently: How much conversations actually affect our mood. What do you think?” “This reminds me of a discussion we had about how easy it is to misunderstand people when we don’t know their full story.” “I’ve been trying to be more careful about what kind of talk I sit in. It’s harder than it sounds.”

Notice what’s happening here. You’re not accusing. You’re not lecturing. You’re not claiming moral superiority. You’re speaking about yourself.

And that lowers defenses. Sometimes, no one responds. Sometimes someone changes the topic. Sometimes one person leans in, and that’s enough.

Influence rarely happens in the center of the group. It starts on the edges.

Let’s be honest. People will notice. People will comment. People will reduce you to “that one thing” you’re trying to improve.

This happens because when someone changes, it disturbs the unspoken agreement to stay the same. But here’s the hard truth: If fear of people’s reactions determines your boundaries, you are no longer living from principles; you are living from approval. And approval is the most expensive currency you can spend. You don’t need to justify your inner limits. You don’t need to explain yourself every time. You don’t need to fix the group. You only need to decide: What kind of conversations am I willing to feed with my presence?

Sometimes, the wisest option is withdrawal. Not dramatic, not moralized, just quiet. You excuse yourself. You step away. You don’t return immediately. Not to make a statement, but to protect your inner space. This is not arrogance. This is stewardship. You have limited attention. Limited emotional energy. Limited moral bandwidth.

And everything has an opportunity cost. What you sit through today becomes easier to sit through tomorrow. It’s tempting to think, “It’s just talk.” But talk shapes thought. Thought shapes attitudes. Attitudes shape character. When gossip becomes casual, cruelty becomes light. When cruelty becomes light, conscience becomes dull. When conscience becomes dull, we stop noticing the loss.

This is why choosing better conversations is not a social preference—it is a moral discipline. And like all disciplines, it feels lonely at first. But over time, something shifts. You find one person who resonates. Then another. Slowly, a different kind of company forms—not louder, not larger, but truer.

You are not responsible for reforming everyone around you. You are responsible for not letting them reform you in ways you know are wrong. Speak when you can, with humility. Redirect when possible, with wisdom. Withdraw when necessary, with dignity.

And above all, don’t abandon the effort just because it’s uncomfortable. Some struggles are not meant to be resolved quickly. They are meant to refine the kind of person you are becoming.

And that, quietly, is the real conversation that matters.

/by

A Major Hindrance in Reorganizing Our Lives

A Major Hindrance in Reorganizing Our Lives

 

 

 

یہ مضمون اردو میں پڑھیں

I said it hesitantly, almost apologetically, “I’m trying to be more regular with my prayers,” I told him. “Especially Fajr. And that means I want to sleep by ten. But people around me don’t understand. Weekend gatherings run late. Family wants late-night dinners, movies, and long sittings. When I say no, it feels like I’m hurting them. And then I’m confused. Aren’t we supposed to fulfill both God’s rights and people’s rights?”

He listened quietly. Then he said something that immediately eased the tension inside me. He said, “Don’t expect immediate support for a change that has only happened inside you.”

Those words stayed in my mind.

He explained that whenever a genuine inner change happens—especially a religious or moral one—it creates a mismatch with the existing social setup. Families, routines, friendships, and unspoken expectations are all built around the old version of us. When we change, the environment doesn’t automatically update itself. “You’re not living on an island,” he said. “You’re living inside a social system that had its own rhythm before your change.”

That reframed everything. I had been interpreting resistance as rejection: they don’t respect my faith. But he showed me another angle: resistance is often just lag. The change has occurred in one place, not everywhere.

He warned me against a common mistake. “If you become rigid too quickly,” he said, “you’ll exhaust yourself. And if you demand that others immediately adjust to you, you’ll strain relationships.”

That hit home. I had been oscillating between guilt and defiance: either forcing myself to attend late gatherings and missing Fajr, or withdrawing completely and feeling resentful. Both felt wrong.

“What should I do then?” I asked after a while.

“Adapt first. Communicate later.” He explained that the early stages of change require humility, patience, and gradual adjustment. Not dramatic declarations. Not moral pressure on others. Not framing everything as right versus wrong. “Sometimes,” he said, “you quietly absorb the discomfort yourself.”

He shared an example from his own life. When he first tried to restructure his sleep around Fajr, it disrupted everything: family dinners, social invitations, even his own body clock. There were nights when he struggled to fall asleep early, and mornings when he woke up exhausted. It wasn’t smooth or ideal. “But over time,” he said, “the system adjusted.” Children stopped waiting for him at late dinners. Friends stopped insisting. Not because he demanded it, but because his consistency gave the change a clear rationale. “That consistency,” he said, “wasn’t aggressive. It was calm.”

That distinction mattered.

He emphasized something subtle but powerful: the change belongs to you. The burden of adjustment initially belongs to you, too. “When the change is internal,” he said, “the flexibility has to be external.”

Instead of saying, You should understand, he suggested asking questions: “Do you think this is a good change?” “Do you think waking for Fajr matters?” “Can we adjust a little, even if not fully?”

Not debates. Conversations. Not sermons. Shared reflection. He also cautioned against all-or-nothing thinking. “You don’t have to attend every late gathering,” he said. “And you don’t have to boycott life either.” Some events will be unavoidable. Some compromises temporary. Some nights imperfect. That doesn’t invalidate the direction you’re moving in. “Lifestyle change,” he reminded me, “is not a switch. It’s a slope.”

Then he addressed the guilt I hadn’t fully articulated. “Fulfilling people’s rights does not mean living against your conscience,” he said. “And fulfilling God’s rights does not require emotional harshness.”

That sentence felt like balance returning.

He explained that people’s rights are violated when there is neglect, disrespect, or cruelty, not when someone makes a reasonable boundary rooted in responsibility. “You’re not rejecting people,” he said. “You’re reorganizing your life.” And reorganization always looks inconvenient at first.

He urged gradualism. If sleeping at ten feels impossible, sleep at ten-thirty. If Fajr is early, pray and rest again. Build momentum instead of demanding perfection. “Drastic change often collapses,” he said. “Gradual change stabilizes.”

The most important part came at the end: “Don’t make this about whether they approve,” he said. “Make it about whether you can sustain it.” Approval may come later. Or it may not. Either way, wisdom lies in staying gentle, flexible, and consistent, without apologizing for caring about your relationship with God.

As I sat with his words, something inside me softened. I realized I had been asking the wrong question. Rather than asking Why aren’t they supporting me? I should have asked, How can I walk this path without losing myself or them?

Faith, I realized, is not only about devotion. It is also about patience, wisdom, and timing. And sometimes, the most faithful thing you can do is change quietly, allowing the world to catch up.

/by