Channel
@ahnaafservicesresearch
On this record: Also posting the same content · Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
795subscribers
-1 since we began measuring on 8 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.
| Telegram ID | -1002350010301 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @ahnaafservicesresearch |
| Created | Between 1 September 2024 and 31 March 2025— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 8 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 8 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 3 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 8 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/ahnaafservicesresearch |
This channel’s posts match, word for word or near enough, posts on 1 other registered channel, found by comparing text fingerprints across every channel on the register. That matching has been checked by hand against the live Telegram pages and found reliable — 0 wrong of 45 pairs re-read.
Which channel, if either, published first is deliberately not shown. The same hand-check found that reading wrong 18 of 45 times — 60%, no better than a coin flip — because it depends on how deep our own crawl happened to reach into each channel’s history, not on when the content was actually first posted. This list is ordered by subscriber count, the same as every other listing on this site, never by which channel we think came first. Word-for-word matching has several ordinary explanations besides copying — a channel mirroring itself, an unattributed repost, or two channels independently repeating the same wire story — and this measurement cannot tell those apart. How this is measured.
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 8 Aug 2026, 11:42 | 795 | -1 |
| 8 Aug 2026, 01:45 | 796 | no change |
| 8 Aug 2026, 00:20 | 796 | first reading |
20 posts held, back to 7 July 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 1 pageof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 28 July 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 20 (7 July 2026 – 28 July 2026) |
| Views total | 2,030 |
| Reactions total | 18 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 8 Aug 2026, 01:45 UTC |
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
30 reactions across 20 posts, in 5 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 53.3% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 16 | 53.3% | |
| 👍 | 6 | 20.0% | |
| 🔥 | 5 | 16.7% | |
| 👏 | 2 | 6.67% | |
| 🥰 | 1 | 3.33% |
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 20 of the 20 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 30reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 20 most recent posts we hold, published 7 July 2026 to 28 July 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
9️⃣ Famous Salafī/Ahl-e-Ḥadīth Researcher, Prof. ʿAbd al-Raʾūf Ẓafar mentions: ❝Ḥasan li-Ghayrihī❞ to be among the two types of Ḥasan Ḥadīth. 📚 [al-Taḥdīth fī ʿUlūm al-Ḥadīth, pg. 167] 🔟 Prof. ʿAbd al-Raʾūf Ẓafar also defines Ḥasan li-Ghayrihī: ❝It is that Ḥadīth which does not possess intrinsic ḥusn dhātī, meaning that it is not Ḥasan in itself because some minor defect is found in its narrator or chain. However…
❤1🔥1
📌 Evidences from Salafī/Ahl-e-Ḥadīth Scholars 1️⃣ Salafī/Ahl-e-Ḥadīth Scholar, Qāḍī al-Shawkānī رحمه الله (d. 1250 AH) writes: ❝Through this, you come to know that this Ḥadīth is from the category of Ḥasan li-Ghayrihī, and it is used as evidence according to the majority of scholars.❞ 📚 [Nayl al-Awṭār min Asrār Muntaqā al-Akhbār, 9/22] 2️⃣ Nawāb Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān Bhopālī رحمه الله (d. 1307 AH), one of the founder…
👍1
📝 Note: If there is no other Ḥadīth present in the chapter, then according to Imām Aḥmad رحمه الله and Imām Abū Ḥanīfah رحمه الله, it will also be considered authoritative in legal rulings (Aḥkām). 📌 Causes for the Removal of Weakness (Injibār al-Ḍaʿf) in Ḥadīth 👉 The weakness present in a Ḥadīth can be removed through multiple causes and corroborating indications (Qarāʾin). However, among them, the most important …
🥰1
2️⃣ Imām Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī al-Shāfiʿī رحمه الله (d. 852 AH) states: ❝Whenever a narrator with poor memory is supported by a reliable supporting narrator, such as one who is above him or equal to him, not below him, and likewise a mixed-up narrator (Mukhtaliṭ) whose narrations are not distinguished, a Mastūr narrator, a Mursal chain, and likewise a Mudallis narrator when the omitted narrator is unknown, then the…
👏1
🧵 Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth Series: Evidences from Muḥaddithīn and Salafī/Ahl-e-Ḥadīth Scholars on Acceptance of Ḥasan li-Ghayrihī 📌 Background Due to ignorance and a lack of depth in the sciences of Ḥadīth, there is a common misconception among the general masses about Ḥasan li-Ghayrihī. Many common people who are not well-versed with these terminologies undermine its value in Islamic jurisprudence. In this post, we will d…
❤1
1️⃣3️⃣ Imām Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī al-Shāfiʿī رحمه الله (d. 852 AH) stated: ❝The Mursal narrations of the Successors (Tābiʿīn) are a valid proof (Ḥujjah) according to Imām Mālik and his students, and this is also one of the two well-known narrations from Imām Aḥmad [...] Imām Abū Dāwūd, in his letter to the people of Makkah, explicitly stated that the scholars of the past used to utilize the Mursal narration as vali…
❤1🔥1
6️⃣ Imām Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī رحمه الله (d. 310 AH) stated: ❝All of the Tābiʿīn unanimously agreed that the Mursal narration is acceptable. And from the era of the Tābiʿīn until the end of the second century, not a single person denied its status as a valid proof (Ḥujjah).❞ 📚 [Tadrīb al-Rāwī, pg. 104] 7️⃣ Imām al-Ḥākim al-Shāfiʿī رحمه الله (d. 405 AH) categorized the Mursal narrations of Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī among th…
👍1
🧵 Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth Series: Mursal Ḥadīth is Accepted by Majority Scholars of the Salaf and Khalaf 📌 Background Due to ignorance and a lack of depth in the sciences of Ḥadīth, there is a common misconception among the general masses that a Mursal Ḥadīth is absolutely weak (Ḍaʿīf) and completely rejected. Many common people who are not well-versed with these terminologies undermine its value in Islamic jurisprudence.…
❤4
📌 Evidence from the Founder of Barelwīs 👉 Some extremists amongst the Barelwīs raise a question as to why the ʿUlamāʾ of Deoband do not declare Yazīd a disbeliever [Kāfir] and why they do not permit cursing him. The answer to this is given by the Barelwī founder, Mawlānā Aḥmad Riḍā Khān himself, who mentions: ❝Our Imām al-Aʿẓam [Abū Ḥanīfah] chose silence regarding cursing and declaring him a disbeliever out of cau…
❤1
1️⃣1️⃣ Muftī Muḥammad Farīd رحمه الله (d. 1432 AH), Shaykh al-Ḥadīth of Dār al-ʿUlūm Ḥaqqāniyah, said: ❝Without a doubt, Yazīd’s incompetence and oppression are also undeniable; this ruling is inscribed in all the books of jurisprudence [Fiqh] and scholastic theology [Kalām].❞ 📚 [Fatāwā Farīdiyyah, 1/496] 1️⃣2️⃣ Muhaddith al-Asr ʿAllāmah Yūsuf al-Binnūrī رحمه الله (d. 1397 AH) said: ❝And there is no doubt regardi…
👍1
🧵 Clearing False Allegations on the Pious ʿUlamāʾ of Deoband: Opinion on Yazīd from 18 Scholars of Deoband 📌 Background A common objection raised by some extremists like the Barelwīs is that the ʿUlamāʾ of Deoband support, advocate for, or defend Yazīd ibn Muʿāwiyah. Their objections center around the slanderous claim that the ʿUlamāʾ of Deoband hold a soft corner for the oppressors of the Prophetic Household [Ahl …
❤2🔥1
📌 A Simple Analogy from Aḥādīth 👉 This is just as the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: ❝There is no prayer for the neighbour of the Masjid except in the Masjid.❞ 📚 [al-Mustadrak lil-Ḥākim, 898] ✅ Just as the meaning of this Ḥadīth regarding the neighbour of the Masjid is that his prayer is not complete in terms of reward, in the same way, the meaning of the narrations presented by the extremist Salafī/Ahl-e-Ḥadīth is th…
❤3🔥1
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @ahnaafservicesresearch. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
Citation-graph rank — 135,027 of 1,480,688entries in the measured graph. A weighted position computed from the forward and mention edges below — republished posts weigh more than named mentions — and recomputed periodically, over the whole graph. Published only as this ordinal position, never as a score: a position is a fact, and a score printed beside one channel’s name would read as a verdict this register does not make. The two counts beneath stay separate for the same reason mentions are never summed with forwards anywhere else on this page — a named-by count costs nothing to manufacture. The top 100 by this measure, or how it is computed.
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
Named by 1 registered channel — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
Names
Channels on the register whose handles appear in this channel's posts.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 8 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Ahnaaf Services Research Centre” (@ahnaafservicesresearch), 795 subscribers as measured 8 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/ahnaafservicesresearch.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.