Channel
@mostafamalekian
On this record: Topic · Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Stars · Posts · Posts edited after publishing · Posts recorded as deleted · Citations · Handles named that no longer answer · Telegram's recommendations · Cite this entry
65,812subscribers
+329 since we began measuring on 5 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 31,623–100,000.
| Telegram ID | -1001008848072 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @mostafamalekian |
| Description | 🔸 برای ارسال بازخوردها و پیشنهاد همکاری: @admynchannel 🔹 پاسخ به پرسشهای متداول - پشتیبان کانال: @mostafamalekiian 🔸 صفحهی اینستاگرام: instagram.com/mostafamalekian_official/ 🔹 کانال ناقد: @naghedchannel 🔹️اداره صفحه توسط ادمین |
| Created | 23 September 2015 — measured — cross-checked against a third-party dataset (ext.tg_channel) |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 6 November 2026 |
| Measurements held | 60 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 6 November 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/mostafamalekian |
Politics & activism — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-UD-Q6_K_XL, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 20 August 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 55% 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 the other topics.
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 6 Nov 2026, 14:56 | 65,812 | +9 |
| 5 Nov 2026, 12:17 | 65,803 | +8 |
| 4 Nov 2026, 14:08 | 65,795 | +14 |
| 3 Nov 2026, 11:18 | 65,781 | -3 |
| 2 Nov 2026, 07:54 | 65,784 | +3 |
| 1 Nov 2026, 09:25 | 65,781 | +2 |
| 31 Oct 2026, 08:15 | 65,779 | +14 |
| 29 Oct 2026, 07:19 | 65,765 | +7 |
| 28 Oct 2026, 05:08 | 65,758 | -10 |
| 27 Oct 2026, 06:45 | 65,768 | -8 |
| 26 Oct 2026, 08:27 | 65,776 | -7 |
| 25 Oct 2026, 07:39 | 65,783 | +6 |
| 23 Oct 2026, 07:08 | 65,777 | -13 |
| 22 Oct 2026, 09:28 | 65,790 | +17 |
| 20 Oct 2026, 23:20 | 65,773 | +12 |
| 19 Oct 2026, 23:56 | 65,761 | -12 |
| 18 Oct 2026, 20:36 | 65,773 | -9 |
| 17 Oct 2026, 20:25 | 65,782 | -2 |
| 16 Oct 2026, 17:16 | 65,784 | +4 |
| 15 Oct 2026, 20:29 | 65,780 | first reading |
61 posts held, back to 26 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 187 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
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.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 5 November 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 61 (26 December 2025 – 5 November 2026) |
| Views total | 169,700 |
| Reactions total | 2,243 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 6 Nov 2026, 21:41 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.
Lifetime counters from Telegram’s own channel header, read 6 November 2026 — not the date at the top of this page, which is when the subscriber count was last read. A count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints these counters in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈142,000 means somewhere between 141,500 and 142,499.
Measured directly from 10 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.
19,615 reactions across 60 posts, in 3 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 68.2% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 13,387 | 68.2% | |
| 👍 | 5,363 | 27.3% | |
| 👎 | 865 | 4.41% |
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 61 of the 61 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 19,836 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 61 most recent posts we hold, published 26 December 2025 to 5 November 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.
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @mostafamalekian. 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 61 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 26 December 2025 to 5 November 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.
Telegram’s own ‘edited’ marker: 4 of 7 posts held from the last 30 days (57.1%) carried it when this register last read them. The marker says a post was changed after publishing, not what it said before — this register holds the earlier wording only where an edit fell between two of its own reads (see the edit ledger and how it is measured).
🔴مصطفی ملکیان: 🔹من معتقدم فقط و فقط در سکوت است که انسان هم از نظر فکری، هم از نظر احساسی و هم در شناخت نیازها و خواستههایش به روشنی میرسد. ما در سخن گفتن غبار ایجاد میکنیم و بعد در میان همین غبار شکایت میکنیم که چرا نمیبینیم. @mostafamalekian
❤401👍137👎9
🔴مدّعیاتِ عمده و اصلى کتاب" کار همچون زندگی" ✍️مصطفی ملکیان 1️⃣هر فردِ انسانى براى اداء رسالتى ( calling یا vocation ) خاص، که منحصر به او است، آفریده شده است. ویژگیهاىِ خاصِ جسمانى-ذهنى-روانى که به هرکس داده شدهاند، و با ویژگیهاىِ هیچکسِ دیگر عینیت و وحدت ندارند، فقط بدین جهت داده شدهاند که او را به اداءِ آن رسالت قادر سازند. 2️⃣ اگر آن رسالتِ خاص کشف نشود و/یا زندگى براساس آن تنظیم نشود آدمى پیوند خود را با ژر…
❤146👍38
🔴معیار شرافت انسان؛ رفتار با فرودستان ✍مصطفی ملکیان 🔹به نظر من، یکی از بهترین معیارها برای شناخت شرافت و ذات انسان، نحوه رفتار او با فرودستان است. از نوجوانی برای اینکه بفهمم کسی خوشگوهر و شریف است یا نه، بیشتر به رفتار او با کسانی توجه میکردم که از نظر اجتماعی در جایگاه پایینتری قرار دارند. انسان شریف کسی است که با آبدارچی اداره همانقدر محترمانه رفتار کند که با وزیر آن وزارتخانه؛ و حتی اگر لازم باشد، احترام بی…
❤347👍143👎5
🔴هر باوری که ما را زنده نگه میدارد، لزوماً حقیقت ندارد«سودمندی عملی دلالت بر صدق نظری نمیکند.» ✍مصطفی ملکیان 🔹اینکه یک باور در عمل به ما کمک میکند، مشکلی را حل میکند یا حتی باعث بقای ما میشود، بهخودیخود نشان نمیدهد که آن باور مطابق با واقع است. سودمند بودن یک چیز است و حقیقت داشتن چیز دیگری؛ از اولی نمیتوان دومی را نتیجه گرفت. ممکن است دارویی سردرد ما را درمان کند، اما نظریهای که بر اساس آن، دارو را ساخته…
❤142👍80👎7
🔴آیا بدون انکار خدا هم میتوان مادیگرا بود؟| تفاوت ماتریالیسم و مادیت اخلاقی ✍ مصطفی ملکیان مادیانگاری یا ماتریالیسم دو قسم بسیار متمایز از یکدیگر دارد: یکی «مادیت فلسفی» و دیگری «مادیت اخلاقی» یا «ارزشی». برای روشن شدن تفاوتشان، باید ببینیم هر کدام چه میگویند. ماتریالیست به معنای فلسفی چه کسی است؟ مادیت فلسفی یک نگرش به جهان هستی است. کسی که به این نگرش قائل است، معتقد است هیچ چیزی در جهان وجود ندارد، مگر اینک…
❤138👍53👎3
🔴شاد نبودهام ✍️از متن گفتوگو با مصطفی ملکیان. منتشر شده در اندیشه پویا ۱۰۲ همیشه گفتهاید که معنویت، فرایندی است که آرامشزا، شادیزا و امیدزاست. آیا در گذر از هفتاد سالگی این آرامش، شادی و امید در شما حاصل شده است؟ 🔹در باب آرامش، راضی هستم و فکر میکنم آرامش دارم. در باب امید هم راضی هستم. اما شادی نه. اساساً از بچگی، گمان کنم به جهت سنخ روانی یا شاید هم بهجهت محیط دوران کودکیام، اساساً شاد نبودهام. این یکی…
❤361👍58👎1
🔴پیام استاد محمدعلی موحد به مناسبت گشایش بارگاه شمس تبریزی در خوی @mostafamalekian
❤142👍22👎10
🔴چطور از میانسالی بیشتر بهره ببریم؟ از خودِ دیروزمان، انتظارِ فهمِ امروزمان را نداشته باشیم. ✍مصطفی ملکیان گاهی به گذشته نگاه میکنیم و میگوییم: اگر آن سالها را صرف کار دیگری کرده بودم، امروز زندگی بهتری داشتم. چرا در کودکی اینقدر بازی کردم؟ چرا در جوانی دنبال چیزهایی رفتم که امروز دیگر برایم اهمیت ندارند؟ اما در این داوری، نکتهای را فراموش میکنیم: هر دورهٔ زندگی اقتضائات خودش را دارد. نمیتوانیم کودکی کرده با…
❤242👍88
🔴سخنرانی مصطفی ملکیان در رشت @mostafamalekian
❤136👍22👎7
🔴 چهار تفاوت اخلاق با مناسک و شعائر دینی ✍مصطفی ملکیان 🔹چرا احکام دینی و مناسکی جزو ملزومات اخلاقی نیستند؟ چون گزارههای اخلاقی و گزارههای دینیِ مناسکی تفاوتهایی با هم دارند؛ از جمله: ▪️ ۱. توجیه عقلانی احکام اخلاقی قابلیت توجیه عقلانی دارند؛ میتوان توضیح داد که رعایتکردن یا نکردن آنها چه تأثیری بر زندگی انسانها میگذارد. مثلاً عقل میفهمد که دروغگفتن، اعتماد را از بین میبرد، دیگران را در تصمیمگیری گمراه …
👍128❤87👎10
🔴 چرا حتی اتفاقهای خوب هم گاهی حالمان را بد میکنند؟ ✍️مصطفی ملکیان معمولاً تصور میکنیم اگر اتفاقهای خوبی برایمان بیفتد، حالمان هم خوب خواهد شد. اما خوشایندبودنِ یک اتفاق، بهتنهایی تضمین نمیکند که بتوانیم بهخوبی با آن روبهرو شویم. ما در جهانی زندگی میکنیم که از دو جهت میتواند برایمان دشوار باشد: همهچیز مطابق میل ما پیش نمیرود و از آنچه پیش خواهد آمد نیز خبر قطعی نداریم. ▪️ جهان تعهدی به برآوردن خواستهها…
❤167👍77👎2
🔴سیدجواد طباطبایی را نزد مهندس موسوی بردم ✍بخشی از گفتوگو با مصطفی ملکیان درباره سالهای دوستی تا جدایی با سیدجواد طباطبایی اندیشهی پویا. شمارهی ۱۰۲ _ در پایان جلسهای که برای بزرگداشت هفتاد سالگی شما برگزار شده بود، اشاره کردید که کسی از باب تحقیر و استهزا گفته است ملکیان، متفکر و روشنفکر نیست، بلکه مددکار اجتماعی است. اسم نبردید، اما منظورتان سیدجواد طباطبایی بود. شما هیچ وقت وارد جدل و مقابلهجویی با آقای طب…
❤211👍86👎23
Showing the 12 most recent of 61 posts we hold for @mostafamalekian. 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.
@mostafamalekian edited 1 post after it first published — the same permalink now carries different wording than the one this register originally read, caught because our own crawl held a copy of the earlier text.
An edit is not deception. Typo fixes, price updates and corrections look exactly like this too — this register can tell you the wording changed and when, not why. How this is measured.
We recorded 2 posts on @mostafamalekian as deleted — posts this register held that were missing from the channel’s public page on two separate reads, taken from different network addresses at least an hour apart.
A deletion is not wrongdoing. This register can see that a post it held is no longer on the channel’s public page, and when — not why. Expired ad placements, reposts, rotating links and corrections all look the same. This is a count of recorded detections, not an exact total: it misses deletions we could not see, because only a post we held and later re-read inside the page can be seen to go, and it may include a small number of wrong records. How this is measured.
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Republished by 49 registered channels. The 48 listed are the ones that have forwarded the most posts; the rest are counted here but not each listed.
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 78 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. The 24 listed below are the most frequent namers; the rest are counted above but not each listed.
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.
@mostafamalekian named 2 handles 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.
References a handle that is not a live channel — we have no record it ever was one.
Telegram’s own answer, not this register’s. When this register asks Telegram’s API what is similar to this channel, this is the list it returns, in the exact order Telegram returns it — never re-sorted by subscribers or by anything else this register measures. The relationship, and the order, are Telegram’s; we record them and date them, and make no claim of our own about which of these channels actually resemble this one.
Read from Telegram’s recommendation API, most recently 21 August 2026. Telegram holds a list like this for a small and growing share of the register — how this is measured, and why most channel pages show nothing here.
The reverse of the list above, and a different kind of signal. This does not require this channel to have ever been asked about directly — each row below is a channel we DID ask Telegram about, whose Telegram-generated list happened to include this one. A channel can appear here with an empty list above it, because being named by someone else’s query is independent of having been queried itself.
This channel appears in 37 seed channels' Telegram-generated recommendation lists in total, of which the 24 where it ranks highest are shown above. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.
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 6 November 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“مصطفی ملکیان” (@mostafamalekian), 65,812 subscribers as measured 6 November 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/mostafamalekian.
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.