📌همچنین نظر علامه در ملاذ الأخيار: https://t.me/alasaneed/314

Channel
📚الإرشاد إلی سَبِیلَ الرَّشَاد✨
@alasaneed
On this record: Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
88subscribers
+0 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.
Register entry
| Telegram ID | -1002669194824 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @alasaneed |
| Description | 📨ردود علمۍ و مستند به دروغ ها و اکاذیب تاریخۍ✅ ✍🏻تــحــقــیــقــات رجـالـۍ📚 🌐📌چنل اول ما: https://t.me/fazaeh_cyrus |
| Created | Between 1 March 2025 and 31 July 2025— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 9 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 9 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 2 |
| On Telegram | t.me/alasaneed |
Growth
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 9 Aug 2026, 15:32 | 88 | no change |
| 7 Aug 2026, 15:37 | 88 | first reading |
Engagement
20 posts held, back to 7 December 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
- 46.0%
- avg views ÷ 88 subscribers
- Avg views / post
- 40.5
- 2 posts measured
- Reaction rate
- 0%
- reactions ÷ views · ER floor
- Posts in window
- 2
- 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. It is computed over the 1 of 2 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 17 July 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 20 (7 December 2025 – 17 July 2026) |
| Views total | 81 |
| Reactions total | 0 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 9 Aug 2026, 15:32 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
- 184
- Videos
- 2
- Links
- 166
Lifetime counters from Telegram’s own channel header, read 9 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.
- Video runtime
- 11m 02s
- Average length
- 11m 02s
Measured directly from 1 video 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
31 reactions across 10 posts, in 6 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 41.9% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 13 | 41.9% | |
| 👍 | 7 | 22.6% | |
| 🔥 | 4 | 12.9% | |
| ❤🔥 | 3 | 9.68% | |
| 👎 | 3 | 9.68% | |
| 👏 | 1 | 3.23% |
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 18 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 31reactions 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 December 2025 to 17 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.
Recent posts
🔹 دیدگاه علامه مجلسی رضوان الله علیه در مورد #مختار ✍️ و آنچه از جمیع بین الاخبار ظاهر میشود آن است که او در خروج نیت صحیحی نداشته است و #اکاذیب و #اباطیل را وسیله ترویج امر خود میکرده است ولیکن چون برخی کارهای خیرعظیم بر دست او جاری شده است امید نجات در مورد او هست و متعرض احوال این قسم مردم نشدن شاید اولی و احوط باشد. 📚جلاء العیون، صفحه ۸۰۶ و ۸۰۷ ✍🏻نظر دیگر علامه را در مرآه العقول در ( اینجا ) ببینید. 🔗@eteqada…
❇️ بررسی سندی ❇️ ✍🏻 شیخ کلینی سند این حدیث [ شمارهٔ ٣٩٧ ] را با إسناد دو روایت قبلی [ حدیث شمارهٔ ۳۹٥ ] نقل کرده و تا ابن محبوب رسانده و از ابن محبوب نیز تا ابوعبیده که ایشان از امام باقر (ع) حدیث را نقل میکند ↓ ٣٩٥ - مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ وَ عِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا عَنْ سَهْلِ بْنِ زِيَادٍ جَمِيعاً عَنِ ابْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ... 📗الكافي ٢٦٨/٨ ٣٩٧ - ابْنُ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنْ جَمِيلِ بْنِ صَالِ…
❤3
#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
✍🏻 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 …
❌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…
⁉️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. …
📌حل تعارض آراء رجالی نجاشی و شیخ طوسی 🌐 سایت اسلام ڪوئست ↯ جایی که بین قول شیخ طوسی و نجاشی در مورد یک راوی یا نسبت دادن یک تألیف به یک نویسندهای خاص؛ تعارضی شکل بگیرد، همه قرائن و شواهد احتمالی توسط عالمان بررسی میشود که یکی از این شواهد و قرائن، متقنتر بودن کلام نجاشی است. خلاصه اینکه؛ در انتخاب قول شیخ طوسی یا قول نجاشی، باید عناصر متعددی را در نظر گرفت. البته میتوان گفت که نجاشی در دانش رجال، تخصص ویژهای…
⁉️آیا عدم تضعیف و رد تضعیفات رجالیون باعث توثیق راوی میشود؟!⁉️ قبول نکردن تضعیف الزاما موجب قبول روایت فلان راوی نیست بلکه برای قبول روایت نیاز به توثیق راوی داریم و نه صرف عدم تضعیف! اگر تضعیفی را قبول نکردیم، آن راوی توثیق نمیشود بلکه مجهول میشود و باید بگردیم و توثیقی برایش پیدا کنیم. 🌐درس رجال استاد سیدجواد شبیری ، جلسهٔ ۵۱
👎1
⚠️انسان بی حیا هر کاری را انجام میدهد‼️ ✨رسول الله ﷺ فرمود: از سخنان پیامبران چیزی برای مردم باقی نمانده است، مگر این سخن که: اگر حیا نداری، هر کاری که میخواهی انجام بده. ✍🏻تعلیق شیخ أحمد ماحوزی (محقق کتاب): سند این حدیث از صحیح ترین سند ها است و راویان آن همگی از ثقات ( افراد مورد اعتماد ) و بزرگان هستند. 📗عيون أخبار الرضا ۲۸۹/۲
❤3
✍🏻برتری جهان بینی اسلامی نسبت به جهان بینی زرتشتی 👹زرتشت و اهورامزدا: کشتن 10 هزار مورچهٔ دانه کش، کردار نیک است و به عنوان کفاره گناه بر زرتشتیان و بهدینان واجب میباشد. 📕اوستا - جلیل دوستخواه ج۲ ص۸۱۸ [ وندیداد، فرگرد ۱۴ بند ۵ ] ✨أميرالمؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب: به خدا قسم اگر هفت اقلیم را با آنچه زیر آسمانهای آنهاست به من بدهند تا خدا را با ربودن پوست جوی از دهان مورچه ای نافرمانی کنم؛ هرگز چنین نخواهم کرد. 📗نهج ا…
❤🔥1
حتماً این کلیپ فوق العاده مهم را تماشا کنید تا جهل مستشرقین نسبت به تراث اسلامی و علوم حدیث را متوجه شوید👆🏻
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @alasaneed. 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 — 713,272 of 1,189,255entries 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.
Republishes
Channels on the register whose posts this channel has forwarded.
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.
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.
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 9 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“📚الإرشاد إلی سَبِیلَ الرَّشَاد✨” (@alasaneed), 88 subscribers as measured 9 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/alasaneed.
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.