Which is why it's very important that you're choosing a partner with flaws you can tolerate.
And not trying to change them into what you think they could be.
there is no perfect person, and there is no perfect spouse.
i think one of the secrets to a successful marriage is truly understanding this. you know your person. you know their flaws, their weaknesses, their annoying habits, the parts of them that are "difficult to live with". and sometimes, after years of trying, you may have to accept that certain things about them may never completely change.
maybe your spouse is forgetful, so you learn to remind them without turning every forgotten thing into a character indictment "you never pay attention", "you're always forgetful".
maybe they are not naturally expressive, a little stubborn, slow to make decisions, or simply wired very differently from you.
marriage cannot survive if two people are constantly trying to remodel each other into their own image of the perfect spouse.
when you say you love someone, it means you know that person has a weakness and you choose not to weaponise it against them. loving them is knowing what "irritates" you about them and learning which things genuinely need to change, which things require patience, and which things you simply need to make room for.
again, you will not find a flawless person. and if you spend your marriage fighting every imperfection in your spouse, you may eventually destroy something good in pursuit of something that does not exist.
forget what people yap about nowadays. in marriage, you must be an understanding partner. advise them with kindness where change is necessary, but also learn to accommodate the harmless imperfections that come with being human. thank you!
Or maybe there’s a lot of truth to it (of course not in the absolute sense) to their concerns and it’s mostly based on observation, esp nowadays among the khalaf who are mostly terrible weaponizers.
Even among the salaf, the very best of us, they’ve been reported to say things that provide basis for those concerns, including up to the words of the Prophet himself.
Shaykhul Islām talked about this in his Majmū’ Al Fataawa where he cited a mawqūf narration that you can also find in Sunan Al-Bayhaqi where Umar Ibn Al-Khattāb was reported to have said:
النكاح رق ; فلينظر أحدكم عند من يرق كريمته
“Marriage is slavery/servitude, so let each of you observe carefully who he enslaves his noble womenfolk to”
He goes ahead to cite a statement of one of the scribes of the Prophet, the very lead writer of the Qur’an himself, Zayd Ibn Thābit on the verse in Yūsuf Q12:25 as regards the part that says وألفيا سيدها لدى الباب (meaning: and they found her master at the door). He said: الزوج سيد في كتاب الله (meaning: the husband is a master according to the book of Allaah).
The Shaykh also cited the words of the Prophet himself, reported in Sunan Ibn Mājah (1851), in his farewell sermon, where he said: اتقوا الله في النساء فإنهن عوان عندكم (meaning: fear Allaah as regards women, for they are captives with you). Imagine the very last message of the Prophet to the world which is about 10 paragraphs length and he still managed to talk about treating women well, primarily because of their vulnerable/“disadvantaged” position (الرق also means weakness & restriction, outside servitude btw) as wives, all as part of their gendered tests in this world (just like men have theirs and I’ve spoken about this at length elsewhere).
In the excerpt of Majmu’ Fataawa where I’ve quoted from, Sh Ibn Taymiyyah was partly highlighting why Muslim women are forbidden to be married to non-Muslim men in fact. Have you ever thought about why it was allowed in the opposite direction only (for special kuffaar—Jews & Christians)? Exactly, because of the shar’i position of the wife! A kaafir simply cannot have such enormous leverage over a Muslim woman.
Of course this doesn’t mean that’s how a husband SHOULD BE or TREAT their woman—in fact the whole point of that section of the farewell message is to admonish men not to—but the point is to show the enormous rights and advantages a man has over a woman in marriage. It’s not easy at all, esp in this day and age where women frankly do not have the same socioeconomic incentives to marry like they did in the past.
One thing that definitely doesn’t make it easier is the ill-treatment rampant in marriages today and a subsequent dismissive attitude towards women’s concerns about this treatment. “Anti-marriage agenda” and it’s most probably just folks mostly talking about observable cons and realities of modern marriages & their decisions with it. This won’t stop the problem, and it would only make it worse. Legitimate concerns would soon become (and perhaps are soon becoming) transgressed militant movements (in the anti-shar’i sense, like the kufri feminism).
In conclusion, while marriage is still a positive thing overall, one thing that doesn’t help it’s proposition is this culture of “toxic positivity”, as I like to call it, where all we want to do is to push the positives of legitimately good institutions (albeit also easily weaponized as a tool of oppression & transgression) at the expense of have the tough conversations & decisions—to be better to women individually & as a society, and to make good institutions such as marriage & motherhood more attractive by pushing their pros, alongside the aforementioned good modeling, instead of shaming, gaslighting and falsely mandating people into compliance when they raise concerns.
Nas'alullaah bis salaamah wal ‘āfiyah.
When I like someone, I want things easy for them. I help without being asked, I share their struggles, I make du'a for them, I randomly go out of my ways for them, I tell them how I like them and how they matter.
But when it comes to how to treat me, you want me to tell you how?
At the end of the day, the real issue seems to be insecurity. The longer this discourse goes on, the more apparent it becomes.
It also raises questions about how genuine the “just marry a good person” & “we gotta go back to root cause, good parenting” talks really are.
If you marry a good wife, why be concerned about her having financial independence? Why worry that she’ll use it to “plan an exit”, or become less “humble” because of it?
Isn’t that ultimately the same kind of fear (albeit much less consequential) as a woman fearing abuse, betrayal, or mistreatment? If we’re being completely fair, why is one treated as a legitimate concern while the other is dismissed as a red flag?
A man with nothing to fear wouldn’t worry about it, lol. Some of these retorts are very self-exposing. If you call the other side “preparing for war in marriage”, then are you “protecting your impending abuse”?