3 measurements spanning 6 days, net +6. 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 3,008–3,016 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
12 Aug 2026, 12:39
3,015
+5
6 Aug 2026, 16:26
3,010
+1
6 Aug 2026, 14:06
3,009
first reading
Engagement
17 posts held, back to 13 June 2025 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 3 pagesof 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 17 posts for this entry, the most recent from 12 July 2026. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.
What this channel posts
Video runtime
7m 46s
Average length
3m 53s
Measured directly from 2 videos with a duration reading, out of the posts we hold for this channel — not this channel’s whole posting history, only the sample this register has actually read. An exact reading to the second, taken from the post itself rather than from Telegram’s own rounded chrome, so it carries no ≈ mark.
Reaction mix
312 reactions across 17 posts, in 3 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 78.5% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
👍
245
78.5%
👎
62
19.9%
🤔
5
1.60%
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 17 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 312reactions 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 13 June 2025 to 12 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.
نقد امیرمعزی (۲۶)
مقدمه خیالی بخاری و مسلم!
امیرمعزی در این مصاحبه میگوید:
من نمیدانم کسانی که ... راجع به صحاح اهل سنت ... آیا هیچ وقت مقدمه بخاری و مقدمه مسلم را خواندند؟ ... زود میروند ببینند این حدیث چی گفته؟! ... مسلم و بخاری در مقدمهشان میگویند: ما حدود یک میلیون حدیث در اختیارمان بوده؛ رفته بودیم جمع کرده بودیم ... از این یک میلیون ... بخاری ... حدود هفتهزارتا ... درمیآورد ... که اگر حدیثهای تکراری…
🎙این پادکست برگرفته از مقدمه کتاب «محمّدِ مورخان» نوشته محمدعلی امیرمعزی و جان تولان است، که به بررسی چالشهای بازسازی زندگی پیامبر(ص) از دیدگاه علمی و تاریخی-انتقادی میپردازد. نویسندگان توضیح میدهند که به دلیل متأخر بودن و سوگیری منابع اولیه، دستیابی به یک زندگینامه دقیق تاریخی دشوار است و بیشتر با تصویرسازیهای گوناگون از ایشان در طول قرنها مواجه هستیم.
در ادامه، تحول نگاه نویسندگان مسیحی و غربی از تصویرهای خ…
📘 مقدمهٔ قرآن مورخان (جلد یک)
✏️ محمدعلی امیرمعزی – گییوم دی
📚 دستهبندی علمی: باستان متأخر / روشهای تاریخی–انتقادی
این مقدمه تصویری فشرده و روشن از دو قرن پژوهشهای تاریخی و زبانشناختی درباره قرآن ارائه میدهد؛ از نقد اعتبار روایات اسلامی تا نقش منابع یهودی، مسیحی و سنتهای دینیِ باستان متأخر در شکلگیری متن. نویسندگان نشان میدهند که مطالعه قرآن، بدون روشهای تاریخی–انتقادی و بدون استفاده از شواهد غیرمسلمان و د…
🎧 مقدمهٔ قرآن مورخان (جلد یک)
✍️ محمدعلی امیرمعزی – گییوم دی
📚 دستهبندی علمی: باستان متأخر / روشهای تاریخی–انتقادی
این پادکست، خلاصه و مرور تحلیلی مقدمهای است که تاریخ دو قرن پژوهشهای انتقادی درباره قرآن را ترسیم میکند؛ از بررسی اعتبار روایتهای اسلامی تا نقش سنتهای یهودی، مسیحی و اسناد غیرمسلمان در فهم شکلگیری متن.
شنیدن آن به شما کمک میکند تا فهمی تاریخیتر، دقیقتر و بینارشتهای از قرآن و محیط فکری باست…
✔️موضوع جلسه
✔️بازخوانی انتقادی کتاب «علی راز سر به مهر»، تألیف دکتر محمدعلی امیرمعزی
✅سرفصلهای بحث
🔻واکاوی نظریه «دین علی»:
▪️بررسی ادعای امیرمعزی مبنی بر تمایز «دین علی» از اسلام و همسانانگاری ساختار تشیع با مسیحیت.
🔻امام ناطق و امام صامت:
▪️تحلیل دیدگاه نویسنده درباره رابطه امیرالمؤمنین(علیهالسلام) با قرآن و جایگاه ایشان به عنوان تأویلکننده الهامیافته.
🔻محمد(صلیاللهعلیهوآله) فارقلیط و علی(علیهالسلام) …
✅سرفصلهای بخش پرسش و پاسخ و گفتگوی انتقادی:
🔻نقد روششناسی مستشرقان (فرضیهمحوری و گزینشگری):
▪️آسیبشناسی پژوهشهای غربی در برخورد گزینشی با روایات (انتخاب اقلیت روایات موافق با فرضیه و نادیده گرفتن اکثریت روایات مخالف) و تفاوت روشهای استقرایی با روشهای قیاسی در تاریخنگاری.
🔻چالش نظریه «دین علی» در برابر سنت اسلامی:
▪️بررسی ادعای امیرمعزی مبنی بر جدایی ماهوی «دین علی» از اسلام رایج؛ آیا شیعیان خود را تداومده…
حسن انصاری (استاد دانشگاه پرینستون ایالات متحده آمریکا)، در فرستهای با استناد به فصلی از کتاب العثمانیة اثر جاحظ، بیان میکند که تا زمان نگارش این اثر (نیمه سده سوم هجری)، هیچ نشانی از باور به تحریف قرآن در میان شیعیان امامی وجود نداشته است. او تأکید میکند که جاحظ، با دقت در نقد دیدگاههای شیعه، اگر چنین اعتقادی را در میان آنان مییافت، آن را مطرح میکرد. نبود این اشاره، گواه بر نبود چنین اندیشهای در آن دوره است. …
تحریف معنای روایات شأن نزول «وما رمیت إذ رمیت ولکن الله رمی»
توضیح در پست بعد
#امیرمعزی
@AmirMuezzi
👍6
Showing the 12 most recent of 17 posts we hold for @AmirMoezzi. 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 — 462,711 of 1,169,250entries 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 2 registered channels — 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.
Handles this channel named that no longer answer
Dead references
1
handles named in this channel’s posts, vacant today
Evidenced gone
0
we ourselves saw one of these resolve, at some point
Never seen alive
1
vacant every time we have ever looked
@AmirMoezzi named 1 handle that resolve to nothing today. That is a fact about the reference, not necessarily a fact about the handle’s history — see the two groups below.
Most of these may never have existed as a live channel at all.A handle a channel names can be a typo, an aspirational name nobody registered, or a channel that was already gone before this one ever mentioned it. Unless a row below is marked evidenced, all we know is that it references a handle that is not a live channel today — not that anything “died”. How this is measured.
Never seen alive
References a handle that is not a live channel — we have no record it ever was one.
@mahad_torath_alavi named in 2 posts, 8 August 2026 – 8 August 2026
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 12 August 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“خوانش آثارِ محمدعلی امیرمعزّی” (@AmirMoezzi), 3,015 subscribers as measured 12 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/AmirMoezzi.
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.
