Channel
@shiiticstudies
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
333subscribers
+3 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.
| Telegram ID | -1002509000329 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @shiiticstudies |
| Created | Between 1 March 2025 and 31 July 2025— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 12 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 3 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 12 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/shiiticstudies |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 12 Aug 2026, 22:03 | 333 | +3 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 21:47 | 330 | no change |
| 6 Aug 2026, 03:06 | 330 | first reading |
20 posts held, back to 27 March 2026 — 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 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 31 July 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 20 (27 March 2026 – 31 July 2026) |
| Views total | 433 |
| Reactions total | 35 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 6 Aug 2026, 21:47 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.
201 reactions across 20 posts, in 5 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 91.5% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 184 | 91.5% | |
| 👍 | 11 | 5.47% | |
| 👏 | 3 | 1.49% | |
| 💔 | 2 | 0.995% | |
| 💩 | 1 | 0.498% |
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 20 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 201reactions 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 27 March 2026 to 31 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.
“They can stone my grave if they want to!”: A Fascinating Report Concerning the Permissibility of Mutʿa (Temporary Marriage) Al-Bukhārī (d. 256) and Muslim (d. 261) transmit via their chains to al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya (d. c. 100) who reports from two companions Salamah b. al-Akwaʿ and Jābir b. ʿAbdallāh that a herald came to them and announced: “The Messenger of Allah has permitted you to engage in mutʿ…
👍6❤4
What to do in the 3rd and the 4th? A Distinctive Position of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib in Ṣalāt A distinctive legal position attributed to ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib is that he used not to recite any Qur'an (even al-Ḥamd) in the 3rd and 4th unit of prayer. ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī (d. 211) narrates in his Muṣannaf from Sufyān al-Thawrī from Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī from al-Ḥārith al-Aʿwar that “ʿAlī used not to recite (any Qur’an) in t…
❤25
File, posted without a caption
❤3
I am pleased to share the slides of the presentation I gave at AMI conference (2026) entitled: “Literary Analysis of Polemical Anecdotes: A Neglected Source for the Study of the Early Ghulāt”. Using the profile of the infamous Kufan narrator Mufaḍḍal b. ʿUmar al-Juʿfī (d. after 183/799) as a case-study, it is demonstrated that literary analysis of what I call ‘polemical anecdotes’, including those likely formulated …
❤3👏3
Photo, posted without a caption
👍3
Who Was Responsible for the Killing of al-Ḥusayn? It is ridiculous to find some trying to minimize the Umayyad role in the killing of al-Ḥusayn when it was acknowledged by the Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān (r. 65-86) himself. The prolific scholar Ibn Abī Dunyā (d. 281) reports with his chain: ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān used to write to (his governor) al-Ḥajjāj: “Keep me away from the blood of the Banī ʿAbd al-Muṭṭali…
❤5
An esteemed researcher and friend has brought to my attention his study of the other variants of this particular report and added useful notes: https://t.me/Al_Meerath/1056?single (It is in Farsi, but the one who is interested can use AI to translate).
❤3👍1
A more complete version of this report can be found in the chronicles of Ibn ʿAsākir wherein ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn narrates from his father, al-Ḥusayn, an account of John the Baptist’s killing at the hands of Herodias and her daughter Salome. See Taʾrīkh Madīnat al-Dimashq (ed. al-ʿAmrawī), v. 64, pp. 206-207 (https://shamela.ws/book/71/29586), and compare to the account found in the Gospel of Mark 6:17-28.
❤11
What the World is Worth ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn said: We set out with al-Ḥusayn (towards Karbala). There was no station on the road where he would not recall John the Baptist and his killing. Then he said one day, “A demonstration of the utter worthlessness of this world to Allah is that the head of John the son of Zechariah was presented to a prostitute from among the prostitutes of the Children of Israel!” Explanation…
❤12
It was conveyed to us both that al-Barbahārī said: ‘I have been informed that there is reciter who is known as Khilb who eulogizes. Seek her out and kill her!’” Notes: Khilb means ‘veil of the heart’. She was probably a slave-girl. Al-Barbahārī (d. 329) was a well-known Ḥanbalī preacher who attempted to impose his version of amr bil maʿrūf/naḥy anil munkar in the city of Baghdad through rousing the rabble at which h…
💔2❤1
Al-Muḥassin b. ʿAlī al-Tanūkhī (b. 327, d. 384) reports from his father and Ibn ʿAyyāsh, both of whom said: “There was in Baghdad a very good and proficient reciter of elegiac poetry (nawḥ) whose name was Khilb. She would recite this (aforementioned) poem: أيّها العينان فيضا ... واستهلّا لا تغيضا وابكيا بالطف ميتا ... ترك الصدر رضيضا لم أمرّضه فأسلو ... لا ولا كان مريضا O two eyes, flow forth And pour out, do not …
❤5
Then he (i.e. Abū al-Ḥasan) said to me (i.e. al-Tanūkhī’s father): “O Abū al-Qāsim, since you know the man (i.e. Ibn Aṣdaq) then I entrust the matter to you, and it is binding on you, until you convey it to him’ I said: “I hear and obey the command of the mistress of the women of the worlds!” He (i.e. al-Tanūkhī’s father) said: “This was in the month of Shaʿbān. The people in those times would face severe difficulty…
❤13
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @shiiticstudies. 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 — 65,877 of 1,340,412entries 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.
Named by 4 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.
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.
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.
“Shiitic Studies” (@shiiticstudies), 333 subscribers as measured 12 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/shiiticstudies.
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.