در این کانال سایت ها ، گروه ها و ادمین های ملی گرا و مجوسی مورد انتقاد و ردود سنگین قرار میگیرند و جهل و بیسوادی آنان اثبات میشود.
🩸زیر مجموعه کانال فضائح کوروش هخامنشی:
@fazaeh_cyrus
Created
Between 1 August 2025 and 31 October 2025— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated.
2 measurements taken within a single day. Dots are measurements; the straight line between them is drawn to join them, not to claim we know the path taken in between — snapshots are recorded only when a count changes, so gaps mean “no change observed”, never “interpolated”. The vertical axis spans 59–61 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
10 Aug 2026, 05:00
60
no change
9 Aug 2026, 15:45
60
first reading
Engagement
17 posts held, back to 2 January 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 · 30 days
123.3%
avg views ÷ 60 subscribers
Avg views / post
74.0
8 posts measured
Reaction rate
0.533%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
8
of 17 held
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. It is computed over the 5 of 8 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
What these figures were computed from
Window
Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 29 July 2026
Posts held
17 (2 January 2026 – 29 July 2026)
Views total
592
Reactions total
2
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
10 Aug 2026, 05:00 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.
What this channel posts
Photos
42
Videos
1
Links
52
Lifetime counters from Telegram’s own channel header, read 10 August 2026 — not the date at the top of this page, which is when the subscriber count was last read. Below Telegram’s rounding threshold, so these counts are exact.
Reaction mix
3 reactions across 3 posts, in 2 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 66.7% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
❤
2
66.7%
🔥
1
33.3%
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 11 of the 17 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 3reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 17 most recent posts we hold, published 2 January 2026 to 29 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.
1️⃣اولاً ما دین خودمان را از قرآن و اقوال بزرگان ( رسول الله و ائمه اطهار و علماء ) خود میگیریم و حرف یک کافر برای ما هیچ حجیتی ندارد.
فلذا حرف و تحلیل این شخص کمترین ارزشی برای ما ندارد
2️⃣ثانیاً در اینکه متن قرآن بیش از هزار سال قدمت دارد هیچ شکی نیست بلکه مصحفهایی مانند مصحف توبینگن پیدا شده که حدوداً ۲۰ تا ۴۰ سال پس از فوت پیامبر نوشته شدند (رفرنس)
أيضاً حدیث متواتر «إني تارك فيكم الثقلين كتاب الله وعترتي» ه…
حالا شما میخوای شبیه بچه های ۵ ساله خودت رو برندهٔ خودخوانده بحث حساب کنی (انگار مسابقه است!) من مشکلی ندارم فقط لطفاً گریه نکن میگم باشه تو پیروز شدی !
✍🏻 به تمامی اشکالات شما پاسخ دادم، شما در این چند روز ثابت کردی یک دروغگوی شیادی که هم متن کتاب رو تقطیع کردی هم به من دروغ بستی
راجع به دینکرد هم در اینجا پاسخ دادم اما قصد فهمیدن نداری
شما گفتی سند از دوران باستان و زرتشتیان
من هم حداقل در بدترین حالت اگر به ش…
بنده که الحمدلله مثل شما نژادپرست نیستم و با هیچ قومی ستیز و دشمنی ندارم
اما نکتهٔ خندهدار ماجرا برای من اینه که شما خودت تُرک هستی ولی فاز مجوسی گری گرفتی و خودت رو سرباز ایرانشهر میدانی و از این توهمات کودکان زیر ۱۵ سال !
در باب توهین باید بگم که شما ( = باستانگرایان اسلامستیز ) سال ها است دارید به مقدسات ما توهین میکنید و ما مثل آدم با شما برخورد کردیم
حتی شخص شما هم پرونده سیاهی در این زمینه داری و در پیو…
👈🏻 بیا مجوسي خنگ !
✍🏻 دکتر فریدون فضیلت و محققین کتاب دینکرد سوم مینویسند:
در کردهٔ پنجم آشموغ یعنی از دین برگشته [ یا 👈🏻 مزدکیِ 👉🏻 مسیحی شده ]
📕کتاب سوم دینکرد - دفتر دوم - پیشگفتار مترجم ( ص۱۷ پی دی اف )
🔖 احمق جان! بہ این میگن استدلال تنزلی و تسلمی ؛ یعنی این عقیدهٔ واقعی من نبوده بلکه برای اقناع شما گفتم: اصلاً ما بگیم چنین چیزی هم نبوده در دین زرتشت ، مهم اینه که در تاریخ ایران باستان اتفاق افتاده و وجود داشته در حقوق ساسانی ڪما اینڪہ شما خودت هم معترفی و گفتی موافقم ؛ پس چرا به من اشڪاݪ میگیری؟!
حالا اینڪه این بدعت هست یا ضلالت هست یا ڪفر هست و شرك هست و فسق هست و جور هست و... ربطی به بحث ما نداره و نه سودی برا…
✍🏻 مہم نیست ڪہ اسم مزدکیان آمده باشه یا نه
از الفاظ به ڪار رفته متوجه میشویم در رد زندیقان مزدکی نوشته شده
چون داره راجع به اشتراک زن و زمین و طبقات اجتماعی حرف میزنه.
البته این سند هم قرار میدهم:
https://t.me/Al_HeWaR/92?single
- احمق جان هر گردی گردو نیست !
اینجا اشتراک زن ربطی به ازدواج استقراضی مورد نظر ما نداره
اشتراک زن و دارایی یعنی نفی انحصار از طبقات بالا مانند شاه و اشراف و موبدان ڪه سندش رو اینجا …
📌باز هم جہالت مجوسي !
¤ قبل از پاسخ باید بگویم اینڪہ شما برای فرار از بحث به این شاخه و آن شاخه میپری و به تناقضات خودت و اسناد بنده پاسخی نمیدهی ستودنی است 👏🏻
- ڪم ڪم میتوانی دیگر ردیه هم نزنی و تظاهر کنی ڪہ من وجود خارجی ندارم تا دیگه به زحمت نیفتی و آبروی نداشتهٔ خودت هم نبری !
✍🏻 أمّا پــاســـــــــــــــــــــــــــخ ↓
https://t.me/Al_HeWaR/89
#تکمیلی
📌فرق ضعيف با ضعيفٌ في الحديث
فرق ضعیف و ضعیف فی الحدیث. ضعیف یعنی ضعف دارد و میتواند ناظر به مذهب یا جنبه های روایی شخص باشد. ضعف در مذهب هم معمولاً مستند به غلو است که غلو هم فیه ما فیه است. لکن ضعیف فی الحدیث نص در وجود ضعف در جنبه های روایی است در مقابل ضعف در مذهب. لذا ضعیف فی الحدیث فی الجمله دلالتش بر ضعف راوی قوی تر است.
🌐درس رجال استاد سیدجواد شبیری ، جلسهٔ ۵۲
❌عبارات «ضعيف الحديث» و «ضعيف في الحديث» از شدید ترین الفاظ جرح در علم رجال شیعه است❌
ضعیف فی الحدیث ظاهراً ضعف خود شخص است در مسائل حدیثی. [برخلاف نظر وحید بهبهانی] کسی که در موردش ضعیف فی الحدیث گفتهشده است ضعیفتر است از کسی که ضعیفٌ بقول مطلق در مورد او گفتهشده است. زیرا ضعیفٌ میتواند به دلیل ضعف در مذهب باشد و ضعف در مذهب هم ناشی از غلو باشد که ما غلو را قبول نداریم. اما ضعیف فی الحدیث نص در این است که در جن…
✍🏻 بنده با تحقیق در این زمینه به درستی و صحت حرف ایشان پی بردم. رجالیون أعظم خصوصاً نجاشی هیچ وقت برای راوی از لفظ ثقة ضعيف الحديث استفاده نکردهاند؛ بلکه هر وقت خواسته بگوید فلانی ثقه است اما از ضعفاء نقل میکند فرموده: يروي عن الضعفاء. ( که این ضعف به خود محدث برنمیگردد )
چند شاهد که ایشان چنین نسبتی را به ثقات داده است:
🔖محمد بن جعفر بن محمد [كان ثقة ، صحيح الحديث ، إلا أنه روى عن الضعفاء.]
📕رجال النجاشي ص٣٧٣
…
⁉️آیا آراء رجالی مرحوم نجاشی متأثر از ابن غضائری بوده؟⁉️
[ این یکی از اشکالات مهم و مشهوری است که برخی دائماً به آن استناد میکنند و بر اساس همین بهانهٔ واهی و کاملاً اشتباه، جرح و تضعیفات شیخ نجاشی را مردود میشمارند. ]
✍🏻 استاد سید محمد جواد شبیری پاسخ میدهد:
نجاشی نوعاً ناظر به ابن غضائری نیست و شباهتهای عبارتی این دو اکثر به این دلیل است که مصادر مشترک داشتهاند. مثل حسین بن عبیدالله که استاد هر دو بوده است. …
Showing the 12 most recent of 17 posts we hold for @Al_HeWaR. 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
Citation-graph rank — 1,065,622 of 1,478,351entries 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.
Forward network
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.
Mentions
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.
Cite this entry
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 10 August 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“اݪردود والإنتصار 🏳” (@Al_HeWaR), 60 subscribers as measured 10 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/Al_HeWaR.
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.