Telegram RegisterThe public register of Telegram

Channel

العلوم العقلية | سامي السميري

@sam27050

On this record: Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Telegram's recommendations · Cite this entry

15,906subscribers

+66 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026

Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 10,000–31,623.

Register entry

Telegram ID-1001166798575
TypeChannel
Username@sam27050
CreatedBetween 1 March 2018 and 30 June 2021— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated.
First recorded6 August 2026
Last confirmed live12 August 2026
Measurements held8
Confirmed unchanged1 time, most recently 12 August 2026
On Telegramt.me/sam27050

Growth

15,84015,90615,8736 August 2026 — 15,840 subscribers6 August 2026 — 15,843 subscribers8 August 2026 — 15,860 subscribers9 August 2026 — 15,866 subscribers10 August 2026 — 15,871 subscribers11 August 2026 — 15,894 subscribers11 August 2026 — 15,898 subscribers12 August 2026 — 15,906 subscribers6 August 202612 August 2026
8 measurements spanning 7 days, net +66. 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 15,830–15,916 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)SubscribersChange
12 Aug 2026, 21:5615,906+8
11 Aug 2026, 22:5615,898+4
11 Aug 2026, 00:4115,894+23
10 Aug 2026, 00:4415,871+5
9 Aug 2026, 03:5415,866+6
8 Aug 2026, 00:4215,860+17
6 Aug 2026, 21:0215,843+3
6 Aug 2026, 03:0715,840first reading

Engagement

23 posts held, back to 16 May 2026the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 17 pagesof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.

ERR · 30 days
17.7%
avg views ÷ 15,906 subscribers
Avg views / post
2,820
8 posts measured
Reaction rate
0.777%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
8
of 23 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
WindowRolling 30 days · latest post in window 9 August 2026
Posts held23 (16 May 20269 August 2026)
Views total22,532
Reactions total175
Forwards / commentsnot exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken13 Aug 2026, 01:10 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
332
Videos
26
Links
114

Lifetime counters from Telegram’s own channel header, read 13 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

522 reactions across 23 posts, in 2 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 83.7% of them.

Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
ReactionCountShareShare, drawn
43783.7%
👍8516.3%

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 23 of the 23 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 522reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.

Measured over the 23 most recent posts we hold, published 16 May 2026 to 9 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.

Recent posts

9 Aug 2026, 20:10 UTC892 views6 reactionsread 13 August 2026
Forwarded from @al_ghizziFile

وهذا ملف يتضمن محتويات الكتاب. https://t.me/al_ghizzi/2094

👍42

8 Aug 2026, 18:35 UTC≈1,880 views27 reactionsread 13 August 2026

كنت من المعتقدين بصحة نسبة كتاب الرد على الزنادقة والجهمية للإمام أحمد، وبعد قراءة هذا البحث ومناقشة مؤلفه مرارا وتكرارا في كثير مما كتبه تزلزل هذا الاعتقاد وزال، وصرت بعده في شكٍّ من نسبة الكتاب للإمام أحمد. لا يخفى عليّ ما كتبه المثبتون للنسبة من دلائل، وما كتبه النافون للنسبة من دلائل قبل مطالعة هذا البحث، ولكن مناقشة الباحث الصديق عبدالله الغزي للمثبتين كانت مختلفة جدا عمن سبقه، ومعتمدة على جوانب متعددة ومؤثرة ت

27

8 Aug 2026, 18:20 UTC≈1,810 views11 reactionsread 13 August 2026
Photo

Photo, posted without a caption

👍65

5 Aug 2026, 10:18 UTC≈2,820 views31 reactionsread 13 August 2026
Photo

أنا يهمني معرفة هؤلاء السلفيين لتقرير ابن تيمية في حكم المخالفين للحقّ من أهل القبلة في مسائل الأصول والفروع إذا أرادوا إصابة الحق الذي جاء به الرسول ولم يصيبوه، وأنّ ابن تيمية نصر قول العنبري في الباب ونسبه للسلف مع بيانه لمقصود العنبري بالتصويب. وأما كونُ منكر العلو من أهل القبلة لا يتصور أن يتحقق في حقه مانعٌ من موانع التكفير كالتأويل فهذا جانبٌ آخر من البحث، ومردُّ استبعاد هؤلاء السلفيين وعدم تصورهم لقيام مانع ا

26👍5

1 Aug 2026, 15:21 UTC≈3,520 views15 reactionsread 13 August 2026

كلامُ ابن تيمية في النبوات ليس عن الإمكان الذاتي، فإنّ الإمكانَ الذاتيَّ اعتباريٌ، وإنما كلامه عن الإمكان الذي يكون صفةً للفاعل وعرضا قائمًا بالممكن، وهو الإمكانُ الاستعدادي، وهو أمرٌ وجودي لا اعتباري. ثم إنَّ جميع من تكلموا عما قررته على جهة الخلاف لا يحيطون بهذه المقالات علمًا، فلا حاجة إلى تناول ما ذكروه اعتراضًا ونقضا.

8👍7

30 Jul 2026, 14:31 UTC≈3,560 views42 reactionsread 13 August 2026
Forwarded from @sdkhdr

"دفع التكفير عن علماء المسلمين وإن أخطئوا هو من أحق الأغراض الشرعية" [ابن تيمية، مجموع الفتاوى 35/103]

42

30 Jul 2026, 03:37 UTC≈3,980 views27 reactionsread 13 August 2026

ابنُ حزم ليس جاهلا بالمذهب الأشعري، ويظهر جدا مطالعته لكتب الباقلاني وبعض تلاميذه، وهو شديد الخلاف مع أقوالهم وخصوصا في زيادة الصفات وحقيقة الكلام والإيمان وكثير من الدقيق. ولكن عنده تحاملٌ شديد على الأشعرية وإلزامات على المذهب قد ذكرت بعضها سابقًا.

24👍3

30 Jul 2026, 03:19 UTC≈4,070 views16 reactionsread 13 August 2026
Photo

الدكتور سعيد فودة يمزح في كلامه هذا 😁. الجهالات العلمية في هذا الزمن في الشأن العقدي لا تخصُّ مذهبًا دون مذهب.

👍106

5 Jul 2026, 13:55 UTC≈5,660 views52 reactionsread 13 August 2026

وقفتُ على مقطعٍ لأحد الجهلة الذين يكثرون في هذا الزمان، يرفض العقلَ لأن العقل مطلقًا لا يفيدُ القطع، وإنما يفيد الظنّ، وينسب ذلك لابن تيمية!! ويقول أيضًا إنما يقول ابنُ تيمية ما قاله تنزلا!! للفائدة: ابنُ تيمية في مناقشته للقانون الكلي أستطيعُ أن أقولَ لكم استبدل عبارة العقل أصل النقل بعبارة أكثر دقةً وصوابًا وهي: "الشرعُ أصل الشرع"؛ لأنّ الشرع ليس أخبارًا محضة بل قد تضمن أقيسة عقلية هي الأمثال المضروبة، وهذه الأ

40👍12

4 Jul 2026, 17:18 UTC≈5,550 views22 reactionsread 13 August 2026
Photo

Photo, posted without a caption

19👍3

23 Jun 2026, 16:38 UTC≈6,610 views31 reactionsread 13 August 2026
Forwarded from @balgamdy

من كلمات ابن تيمية في الحسين رضي الله عنه وقبره: 🔸"المشهد المنسوب إلى الحسين بن علي رضي الله عنهما الذي بالقاهرة كذب مختلق بلا نزاع بين العلماء المعروفين عند أهل العلم الذين يرجع إليهم المسلمون في مثل ذلك لعلمهم وصدقهم، ولا يُعرف عن عالم مسمى معروف بعلم وصدق أنه قال: إن هذا المشهد صحيح" 🔸‏"أصل هذا المشهد القاهري: هو ذلك المشهد العسقلاني، وذلك العسقلاني محدث بعد مقتل الحسين بأكثر من أربعمائة وثلاثين سنة، وهذا القاهر

31

15 Jun 2026, 08:28 UTC≈5,670 views30 reactionsread 13 August 2026

مع كثرة ما بينه الفضلاء من وجودِ فارقٍ بين مفهوم الذرة في العلم الحديث ومفهوم الجوهر الفرد عند أهل الكلام والفلسفة إلا أنّ بعض دكاترة العقيدة الفضلاء لا يزالون متمسكين بخطأ شائعٍ وهو وحدة المفهوم والماصدق، وأن العلم الحديث أبطل وجود الجزء الذي لا يتجزأ بوصوله إلى انقسام الذرّة فعلا!!

24👍6

Showing the 12 most recent of 23 posts we hold for @sam27050. 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 — 185,709 of 1,151,006entries 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

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.

Appears in Telegram’s recommendations for other channels

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.

مكتبة المليون كتاب
@lovekotob · 495,879
Telegram ranks this channel #67 of 84 here — alongside 83 others — read 10 August 2026
واعي
@uraware2014 · 222,943
Telegram ranks this channel #80 of 97 here — alongside 96 others — read 11 August 2026
قناة أحمد بن يوسف السيد
@alsayed_ah · 520,524
Telegram ranks this channel #80 of 97 here — alongside 96 others — read 9 August 2026

This channel appears in 3 seed channels' Telegram-generated recommendation lists in total. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.

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.

“العلوم العقلية | سامي السميري” (@sam27050), 15,906 subscribers as measured 12 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/sam27050.

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.