u/wheninshower

I’ve always wondered this question. Land seems to require much less maintenance than property. Wouldn’t it be wise to purchase some while you’re young, and hope that the value goes up over time. In 1-2 decades, you either get yourself a plot to build your retirement home, or sell it at a margin. People do this all the time for properties, but it seems not so much the case for lands.

Is there a catch in owning and maintaining a plot of land?

———————————————————————————
Edit: I probably should’ve added some context. So, in short, I have no plans in acquiring a property anytime soon due to geographical uncertainty and my unwillingness to take out a loan (I like to keep my cash outflow at a minimum).

However, I have to admit I’m concerned with property/land prices going up. I can’t afford to outright buy a house but can probably purchase a small plot of land in full cash.

Would it be a good idea to buy some land just to ‘lock’ the biggest cost of home ownership once and for all? Of course I still need money to fund the building costs later but I’m not convinced that those will rise faster than my invested portfolio. Basically the plan is just to guarantee (or at least, maximise the chances) that I’ll have a roof under my head even if all hell breaks loose one day.

I work a typical 9-5 office job (GLC) and my employer prohibits me from formally working another job even outside my 9-5. Is there a way to workaround this so i don’t get myself into trouble?

Is freelancing/working under the table (cash payment) the only way to do it? What are some examples if you know any?

Can anyone advise?

I’m struggling with something and would really appreciate honest advice.

I have a strong fear of falling into zina, and I’m trying to handle it in a halal way. At the same time, I’m finding it really difficult to find someone who perfectly aligns with all my preferences and expectations.

I feel like it’s so hard to find someone that perfectly aligns with your preferences. Especially these days, when people (including myself) add on so many ridiculous criterias. In the West, non-Muslims tend to be in a relationship (stay together, have intimacy, etc) for years to assess long term compatibility before committing into marriage. This seems ideal. Of course, that’s clearly haram for us Muslims.

But it got me thinking, can’t we imitate this but make it halal with a nikah? Because if both parties consent to be together, and the wali agrees to the relationship, the only thing we’re missing here is the akad.

Just to be clear, I am not talking about anything like temporary marriage of Mut’ah (which I believe is Haram). I am not going into the marriage with a predetermined intent or plan to divorce later. I am simply entering marriage with an open mind that divorce is a possibility and solution if things end up not working.

I also thought about delaying having kids at the start, so if things don’t work out, it wouldn’t complicate things as much.

Please read til the end as there is a specific context to this question.
—————————————————————————-

I understand it would be irresponsible if only person is marrying just for sex. But in this case, it’s a mutual desire by both. Both parties only want to fulfill sexual needs in the halal way, but neither are sure if the marriage works long term.

If it works, good. But both parties are open to spearation if no genuine love ever evolves over time.

Would this be acceptable since it’s a mutual decision that is agreed by both parties beforehand, and, no one would be hurt at the end?

EDIT: To people saying this is Mut’ah, can you explain why? Mutah requires explicitly planning a divorce, while in this case, it’s more like wanting to “see where it goes”

Anyone can link any studies showing the likelihood of progressing from one advanced norwood class to another? I’ve been toying with the idea of harvesting beyond the permanent safe donor zone. Which could be OK if I dont end up going beyond NW5 or NW6, especially if I’m taking a DHT blocker.

I know there’s no way to predict genetics but I just want to make a more informed decision when taking a calculated risk.

Was doing my own research and found a few unbelievable results by some top surgeons such as Dr. Pittella and Dr. Zarev. I’ve seen cases where over 10k grafts were harvested to cover a slick bald NW6 head, while still keeping the donor area visibly intact.

From my own research, these surgeons use a smaller punch size to reduce the scarring size. So if each extraction removes less tissue, you can theoretically harvest more grafts per cm2 before the donor looks depleted. A smaller punch size also reduces the transection rate and hence improves the survivability of the transplanted grafts.

Now the question is, why do some surgeons still prefer a bigger punch size? Is there any advantage to it? The way I see it, a lower punch size seems almost always result in a better outcome.

If all surgeon can extract >10k grafts for the average patient, wouldn’t that be the ultimate solution for Male Pattern Baldness?

Was doing my own research and found a few unbelievable results by some top surgeons such as Dr. Pittella and Dr. Zarev. I’ve seen cases where over 10k grafts were harvested to cover a slick bald NW6 head, while still keeping the donor area visibly intact.

From my own research, these surgeons use a smaller punch size to reduce the scarring size. So if each extraction removes less tissue, you can theoretically harvest more grafts per cm2 before the donor looks depleted.

Now the question is, why do some surgeons still prefer a bigger punch size? Is there any advantage to it? The way I see it, a lower punch size seems almost always result in a better outcome.

If all surgeon can extract >10k grafts for the average patient, wouldn’t that be the ultimate solution for Male Pattern Baldness?

My company allows me to register for professional certs/papers for free. Currently working in Finance, so I figured these two are probably the most relevant to me. Which one has more value in terms of salary progression?

I know this may sound weird but I have no desire of being a parent. Plus, with the current state of the world, I am not confident I can raise a kid well anyway. I think the blessing in disguise is that I can be a good match for a woman who cannot biologically conceive. I’m sure there are plenty of these women who still would like to marry. And maybe that’s what my Naseeb is written for.

However, obviously it’s kinda inappropriate to explicitly mention this condition when looking for a potential, especially in real life. So what would be my best bet?

M24 here. I’ve been using the ISO function to look for my potential spouse. I like that ISO doesnt have pics. So that it focuses more on inner connection and compatibility rather than just physical attraction. It allows you to filter people based on your criteria and dealbreakers before moving on to chatting if you and the other person agree to.

However, I also think it’s good to not wait for too long before checking whether you find each other attractive. So what I have been doing is I would ask us to exchange pictures (or social media, if she finds that more comfortable)

From there, it’s easy to carry on the conversation if you find her attractive. But what if you don’t? In the past, in such cases, I would say something like:

“I think you look great. However, I don’t think I’m physically attracted to you. I hope you don’t take it to your heart.

While I think it sounds polite, at the same time, I feel guilty of potentially destroying someone’s self-confidence. Any other ideas on how to be honest without making someone feel small?