Channel
@FaisalTelegrams
On this record: Topic · Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
2,090subscribers
+59 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 1,000–3,162.
| Telegram ID | -1002135240735 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @FaisalTelegrams |
| Created | Between 1 November 2023 and 31 May 2024 — estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 18 September 2026 |
| Measurements held | 13 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 18 September 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/FaisalTelegrams |
Religion — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-FP8, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 16 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 100% confidence. This is a model’s judgement about what the channel is likely to be about, not a fact this register measured the way a subscriber count or a view count is measured — it can be revised on a later pass, and it carries no weight anywhere else on this page. How this classification works, and why it has no browse page of its own yet.
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 18 Sept 2026, 16:40 | 2,090 | +2 |
| 14 Sept 2026, 03:17 | 2,088 | +28 |
| 10 Sept 2026, 01:59 | 2,060 | +5 |
| 4 Sept 2026, 16:37 | 2,055 | +4 |
| 1 Sept 2026, 07:37 | 2,051 | +3 |
| 29 Aug 2026, 06:47 | 2,048 | +3 |
| 26 Aug 2026, 02:24 | 2,045 | +6 |
| 22 Aug 2026, 18:37 | 2,039 | +5 |
| 16 Aug 2026, 20:04 | 2,034 | -7 |
| 13 Aug 2026, 04:15 | 2,041 | +3 |
| 9 Aug 2026, 23:33 | 2,038 | +7 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 16:06 | 2,031 | no change |
| 6 Aug 2026, 15:05 | 2,031 | first reading |
20 posts held, back to 13 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 2 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
Nothing published in the last 30 days. ERR and ER are rolling 30-day measures, so there is nothing to compute — we hold 20 posts for this entry, the most recent from 5 August 2026. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.
442 reactions across 20 posts, in 14 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 70.4% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 311 | 70.4% | |
| 😁 | 43 | 9.73% | |
| 🔥 | 19 | 4.30% | |
| ✍ | 17 | 3.85% | |
| ❤🔥 | 11 | 2.49% | |
| 💯 | 11 | 2.49% | |
| 👍 | 9 | 2.04% | |
| 👀 | 7 | 1.58% | |
| 💔 | 4 | 0.905% | |
| 👏 | 3 | 0.679% | |
| 🤯 | 3 | 0.679% | |
| 🙏 | 2 | 0.452% | |
| 😢 | 1 | 0.226% | |
| 😱 | 1 | 0.226% |
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 442 reactions 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 13 July 2026 to 5 August 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.
Abu Hurayrah reported that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "God will raise the rank of a righteous servant in Paradise and he will say, 'My Lord, how did I receive this?' He will reply, 'By your child seeking your forgiveness.'" (Ahmad and Ibn Majah)
❤21❤🔥1
Signed Faisal
It is often easy to forget how much of an impact one's network has on the legal views they follow. The only way any view can fit within the remit of validity for most people is if they're informed of that view from their network (and rightly so), but this naturally means that the less one expands their network, the less likely they are to hear of what they would otherwise deem acceptable. A diverse network serves to…
❤14✍2👍1🔥1
Signed Faisal
Here's a funny anecdote from Sh. Yusuf al-Qaradawi: He says a scholar once told him that he visited a country and found a pile of stones in their washrooms. He asked the people there the reason behind that and they said, "We use the stones to clean ourselves, reviving the Sunnah (i.e. this is what the believers did in the time of revelation)." Sh. Qaradawi says if these people truly want to "revive the Sunnah" in t…
😁19❤5👏3
Signed Faisal
'Musical Instruments: Exploring the Main Arguments | Book Summary of Sh. Abdullah al-Judai' https://youtu.be/FI_cH9X7wTY?si=a4yK5j2dYLa2Bk6r I hope you find this new upload insightful. May Allah bless you! 🙏❤️ Timestamps: 00:00 - An introduction to the book and topic 07:30 - How to correctly understand related terminology 10:40 - Introductory points on instruments and entertainment 19:10 - Are there any Quranic ve…
❤11
Signed Faisal
Noteworthy contemporaries who argue for the permissibility of musical sounds (when they are not coupled with other associated prohibitions, as no jurist permits them in that case) include: - Sh. Abu Zahrah (d. 1974) - 'al-Fatawa' 796-798 - Sh. Ali al-Tantawi (d. 1999) - 'al-Fatawa' 106-111 - Sh. Farid al-Ansari (d. 2009) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFzy4agZAnE - Sh. Yusuf al-Qaradawi (d. 2022) - 'al-Halal wa a…
❤8🔥2❤🔥1
Signed Faisal
A popular misconception on Law is that different legal conclusions are simply based on whether one deems a specific hadith to be authentic. While it is true that different conclusions can be a result of the data one has in front of them (i.e. which hadiths they believe are authentic), that is not the sole reason for scholarly differences. In reality, to assume that is the case is likely just a result of literalistic…
❤11✍4
Signed Faisal
"Is celebrating birthdays displeasing to God?" Celebrating birthdays is neither prohibited nor recommended. It is simply cultural with no religious association, and falls under base permissibility or discouragement depending on how it is done. The authentic report from Anas ibn Malik on God substituting two pre-Islamic festivals in Madinah for Eid al-Fitr & Eid al-Adha is open to interpretation and can arguably be …
❤22✍2👀2👍1💯1🤯1
Signed Faisal
I was asked the other day if I plan the things I post on this channel. 😅 Truthfully, many of the posts I share are influenced by conversations I've had or a question posed to me that I think carries wider benefit. Otherwise if an interesting thought crosses this mind palace and I think you lovely people may find it insightful, it goes in the drafts somewhere and I write on it later. Unfortunately, some things don't…
❤15😁2
Signed Faisal
The hierarchy of Laws is something that pervades all juristic activity, as juristic reasoning (fiqh) entails recognising priorities and the structure of Law. Not only does this idea influence how hadiths are interpreted, but can also influence their authenticity. To share two hadith examples from Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597): 1) In a popular and alleged hadith, the Prophet (peace be upon him) is described as saying that a…
❤11🔥4👍2
Signed Faisal
An important principle of hadith interpretation that prevents cognitive dissonance: When there is a prohibition in a hadith that is coupled with a great threat, that great threat indicates that the prohibition is linked to something that corresponds to great harm and consequence in proportion to that threat, as the gravity with which the act is coupled indicates that what is prohibited is a high priority within the …
❤15🔥2
Signed Faisal
Some may wonder what I think about the well-known disagreement and relationship between Sh. Abu Ghuddah (d. 1997) & Sh. Albani (d. 1999), given that I mention them both. Truthfully, I don't believe their dispute really concerns me, and I don't feel the need to pick teams between contemporaries (or even classical scholars) when they don't get along, even if I believe one side is right. I prefer to focus on people's i…
❤34❤🔥9🙏2👀1
Signed Faisal
The incident of the Satanic Verses (known as Qissah al-Gharaniq in Arabic) was popularised in recent years, though the name appears to be first introduced by an orientalist in the early 20th century. The Satanic Verses refers to an alleged story of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in which he recites Surah Najm and then praises the intercession of the idols, saying "those are the high-flying cranes, and their interce…
❤12👍5
Signed Faisal
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @FaisalTelegrams. 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.
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.
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 18 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Faisal Hassan” (@FaisalTelegrams), 2,090 subscribers as measured 18 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/FaisalTelegrams.
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.