5 measurements spanning 23 days, net -20. 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 149–175 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
30 Aug 2026, 06:15
152
-3
22 Aug 2026, 21:55
155
-4
16 Aug 2026, 08:17
159
-13
8 Aug 2026, 14:31
172
no change
7 Aug 2026, 15:23
172
first reading
Engagement
20 posts held, back to 15 January 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 1 pageof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR · 30 days
269.1%
avg views ÷ 152 subscribers
Avg views / post
409
1 post measured
Reaction rate
5.38%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
1
of 20 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.
What these figures were computed from
Window
Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 1 August 2026
Posts held
20 (15 January 2025 – 1 August 2026)
Views total
409
Reactions total
22
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
8 Aug 2026, 14:31 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.
Reaction mix
249 reactions across 19 posts, in 24 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 26.1% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
❤
65
26.1%
🕊
44
17.7%
💘
29
11.6%
🔥
26
10.4%
👏
19
7.63%
💯
13
5.22%
❤🔥
10
4.02%
👍
9
3.61%
🍓
7
2.81%
⚡
5
2.01%
🤔
4
1.61%
🎉
2
0.803%
👌
2
0.803%
😁
2
0.803%
🥰
2
0.803%
🦄
2
0.803%
☃
1
0.402%
🏆
1
0.402%
👾
1
0.402%
💋
1
0.402%
4 further kinds
4
1.61%
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 19 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 249reactions 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 15 January 2025 to 1 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.
Telegram Stars
Stars received
133
across the posts below
Posts paid on
13
of 20 we hold a reading for · 65%
Most on one post
104
single highest reading
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @ZZCYS. Telegram publishes the count on the public post preview alongside ordinary reactions, and this register reads it there. It is the only figure on this site that measures money moving rather than attention.
Stars are not reactions, and the two are never added. They are rendered in the same strip on Telegram and counted in the same shape, but one is a tap and the other is a purchase. The reaction totals and the engagement rate elsewhere on this page exclude every figure in this section, and no rate here is computed against a reaction count.
This is not revenue, and we publish no currency figure. What a Star costs a reader and what it pays a channel are different numbers, Telegram takes a share we cannot observe, and the terms have changed. Converting a Star count into money would be an estimate dressed as a measurement, so the count is where we stop.
Counted over the 20 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 15 January 2025 to 1 August 2026. Star counts above 1,000 reach us in Telegram’s short form and carry the same three-significant-figure rounding as everything else on this page.
زيارة الإمام الحسين (عليه السلام) بين حقيقة الشعائر وأثرها في بناء الإنسان.
مقدمة ما قبل التمهيد:
الحمد لله رب العالمين، والصلاة والسلام على سيدنا محمد وآله الطاهرين، لا سيما سيد الشهداء الإمام الحسين (عليه السلام)، الذي أحيا الدين بدمه، وجعل من نهضته مدرسةً خالدةً للإصلاح والتضحية والكرامة.
أما بعد، فإن زيارة الإمام الحسين (عليه السلام) ليست مجرد حركة جسدية نحو كربلاء، ولا عادةً موسمية تتكرر كل عام، بل هي عبادة ع…
هَل هُناكَ سَبَبٌ لِلعَيشِ؟
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ
السَّلامُ عليكم ورحمةُ اللهِ العليِّ الأوَّلِ، الأزليِّ السَّرمديِّ، الَّذي كان قبلَ أن يكونَ الكونُ، وبقيَ حين لا يبقى شيء، القائمِ بذاته، الغنيِّ عن كلِّ معنىً نلتمسه، وعن كلِّ غايةٍ نتصوَّرها.
نحمده على ما وهب من عقلٍ يتساءل، وقلبٍ يبحث، وروحٍ لا تكفُّ عن الطَّلب، ونصلّي ونسلّم على من أُرسل رحمةً للعالمين.
أمّا بعد، فهذا بحثٌ في سؤالٍ طالما أقلق …
سلامٌ عليكم ورحمةُ اللهِ العليِّ الأعلى، سلامُ تعظيمٍ وإجلال، يتقدّمُ القولَ ويُمهّدُ له.
أمّا بعد... فإنّ الكلام إذا لم يُصقَل بالمعنى، كان هباءً تذروه الرياح. وإنّي قد حبستُ القولَ زمنًا، حتى اشتدّ عوده واستقام بيانه. فترقّبوا ساعة البوح، عند إحدى عشرة وإحدى عشرة من ليلِ هذا اليوم، حيث يُكشف المستور، ويُلقى القولُ فصلًا لا هزل فيه. فكونوا على الموعد، فإنّ للحديث بقيّة.
هل الإنسان القديم مات أم تطوّر؟
دراسة تحليلية في الهوية البشرية عبر التحليل الأنثروبولوجي والفلسفي.
الملخّص
يبحث هذا البحث في إشكالية تطوّر الإنسان عبر الزمن، ويحلّل، وفق مقاربات بيولوجية وأنثروبولوجية وفلسفية، ما إذا كان الإنسان القديم مرحلة انقرضت أم أنه يشكّل أساسًا تحوّل عبر الزمن إلى الإنسان الحديث. وتخلص الدراسة إلى أنّ الإنسان القديم لم “يمت” بالمعنى الوجودي أو البيولوجي، بل استمرت مكوّناته عبر التحوّلات الج…
الله والمعنى الضائع: رحلة العقل والروح في بحثهما عن المطلق.
لم يكن الله يومًا فكرةً تُدرَس، بل نَفَسًا يُتنفَّس. فمنذ أن وعى الإنسان ذاته، بدأ يسأل: من أنا؟ ومن أين أتيت؟ ولماذا هذا الشوق الدائم إلى ما وراء العالم؟
هذه الأسئلة لم تكن لغزًا معرفيًا بقدر ما كانت نداءً من الأعماق إلى مصدرها.
لكنّ الإنسان الحديث، حين أغراه وهج العلم والمادة، توهّم أنه اكتفى بذاته، فغاب عنه أن كل معرفةٍ لا تقود إلى الله، هي جهلٌ متنكر بث…
حين سقطت القيم وصعدت الشهوات: تأملات فلسفية في انحلال الإنسان الحديث"
.
يعد الانحلال الأخلاقي مجرّد انحرافٍ سلوكيٍّ عابر، بل أصبحَ علامةً على أزمةٍ أعمق تمسّ جوهر الوجود الإنساني نفسه. في عالمٍ تهيمن عليه المادة وتغيب فيه القيم، انقلبت الموازين، فصارت الشهوة هي المحرّك، والضمير هو الصوت الخافت الذي لا يُسمَع. وفي ظلّ هذا الصراع بين الغريزة والعقل، يثور السؤال الفلسفي:
هل تحرّر الإنسان حقًا من القيود، أم استبدل بها …
الهوية بين الثبات والتغيّر: قراءة مشائية.
التمهيد والمقدمة
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
إنّ البحث في "الهوية" من أمهات المباحث الفلسفية التي لا يستغني عنها طالب الحكمة؛ إذ بها يتبيّن الإنسان نفسه، ويقف على سرّ وجوده، ويميّز بين الوهم والحقيقة. ومنذ القدم اختلف الحكماء: أهي ثابتة باقية أم متغيّرة زائلة؟ وهل "أنا" اليوم هو "أنا" البارحة، أم أنّ الهوية ليست سوى خيال يربط لحظات متقطّعة؟
ولما كان مذهبنا المشائي قائمًا على ال…
برهان الضمان العقلي: إثبات وجود الله من خلال الاستقراء العلمي.
- في عالم تتسارع فيه الاكتشافات العلمية، ويزداد فيه الاعتماد على مناهج التجربة والاستقراء، يبدو أن العقل البشري قد قطع شوطًا طويلًا في فهم الطبيعة. لكن خلف هذا التقدّم يكمن سؤال فلسفي عميق: ما الذي يضمن لنا أن الطبيعة تسير وفق نظام يمكن الوثوق به؟ ما الذي يمنحنا الحق في أن نُعمّم النتائج على المستقبل بناءً على تجارب الماضي؟
يجيب المفكر الإسلامي الشهيد م…
بسم الله نور النور، ومبدع العقول والصدور، الذي هدانا بهدي أنبيائه وأيدهم بنورٍ من نوره.
إنّ القول بثبوت النبوة ليس دعوى دينية صرف، وإنما له برهانٌ عقلي لمن تأمل، وذوقٌ شهودي لمن تَطهّرت نفسه من كثافات المادة. ولنُبيّن المقصود من النبوة، ثم نُثبت إمكانها ووقوعها.
اولًا: في تعريف النبوة:
النبوة هي: فيضٌ نوريّ من العلة الأولى على نفسٍ إنسانيةٍ خالصة الاستعداد، لتكون واسطةً في إيصال الهداية الإلهية إلى سائر النفوس الب…
❤10⚡1❤🔥1🍓1🏆1👍1👏1👾1
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @ZZCYS. 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.
Stars beside a post are paid reactions — Telegram Stars, bought with money and spent on that post. They are a different unit from reactions and are never added to them, here or anywhere else on this page.
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
@ZZCYS 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.
@zzctn named in 6 posts, 9 August 2026 – 9 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 30 August 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“الإدْرَاكِ” (@ZZCYS), 152 subscribers as measured 30 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/ZZCYS.
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.