Channel
@Rawasekh
On this record: Topic · Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Posts edited after publishing · Polls · Citations · Telegram's recommendations · Cite this entry
31,687subscribers
+1,663 since we began measuring on 5 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 31,623–100,000.
| Telegram ID | -1001433640619 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @Rawasekh |
| Description | رواسخ مركز معرفي غير ربحي مختص ومهتم في الحوار مع الاتجاهات الفكرية المختلفة والرد على الطعون والشبهات المثارة حول الإسلام والإجابة على تساؤلات الشباب الشكية |
| Created | 19 May 2019 — measured — cross-checked against a third-party dataset (ext.tg_channel) |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 25 October 2026 |
| Measurements held | 49 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 25 October 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/Rawasekh |
Other / unclassifiable — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-FP8, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 9 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 66% 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 why it has no browse page of its own yet.
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 25 Oct 2026, 03:47 | 31,687 | -8 |
| 24 Oct 2026, 06:27 | 31,695 | -7 |
| 23 Oct 2026, 03:26 | 31,702 | -15 |
| 22 Oct 2026, 02:30 | 31,717 | -16 |
| 20 Oct 2026, 21:59 | 31,733 | +4 |
| 19 Oct 2026, 22:06 | 31,729 | -11 |
| 18 Oct 2026, 23:59 | 31,740 | -11 |
| 18 Oct 2026, 01:28 | 31,751 | -8 |
| 17 Oct 2026, 03:37 | 31,759 | +3 |
| 16 Oct 2026, 01:35 | 31,756 | +7 |
| 15 Oct 2026, 04:26 | 31,749 | -6 |
| 14 Oct 2026, 02:01 | 31,755 | -13 |
| 11 Oct 2026, 08:36 | 31,768 | +16 |
| 7 Oct 2026, 00:17 | 31,752 | +222 |
| 1 Oct 2026, 23:15 | 31,530 | -25 |
| 18 Sept 2026, 15:36 | 31,555 | -46 |
| 16 Sept 2026, 08:40 | 31,601 | -15 |
| 14 Sept 2026, 12:42 | 31,616 | -24 |
| 13 Sept 2026, 00:39 | 31,640 | -32 |
| 11 Sept 2026, 02:21 | 31,672 | first reading |
247 posts held, back to 3 August 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 136 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 25 October 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 247 (3 August 2026 – 25 October 2026) |
| Views total | 143,216 |
| Reactions total | 2,384 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 25 Oct 2026, 15:56 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 25 October 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 109 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.
6,569 reactions across 247 posts, in 4 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 91.1% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 5,986 | 91.1% | |
| 👍 | 450 | 6.85% | |
| 😢 | 107 | 1.63% | |
| 😱 | 26 | 0.396% |
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 247 of the 247 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 6,569 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 247 most recent posts we hold, published 3 August 2026 to 25 October 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.
الاعتقاد بأن الدواء النفسي عبارة عن مخدرات ستجعلك أسيرًا لها طوال حياتك... واحدة من أكثر المعلومات انتشارًا وتسببًا في حرمان المتألمين من العلاج. فإلى أي مدى تُعتبر هذه المعلومة صحيحة؟ 📍 لا تفوت مشاهدة الحلقة كاملة من الرابط في التعليقات #رواسخ #ظلال_بودكاست
👍4
حكمت السلطات الشيوعية عليه بالسجن 14 عامًا ظنًّا منها أنها قتلت فكرته... لكنه خرج من خلف القضبان؛ ليكون أول رئيس لجمهورية البوسنة والهرسك في أصعب فترات تاريخها المعاصر. #رواسخ
❤11
طالما صُدّرت لنا صورة العلم الغربي كراية للتنوير والأخلاق، لكن أرشيف الاستعمار يكشف كيف شكّلت أوروبا رباعية علمية متكاملة لاحتلال العالم! التفاصيل كاملة في جديد حلقات #ما_علينا من هنا 👇 https://youtu.be/nrp2sQvXRik?si=pIu8K0OXEeHTSRU2 #رواسخ
❤12👍1
كيف تقدّم الغرب، وبنى تفوقه التقني والمالي والعسكري؟ وما علاقة العلوم التجريبية الحديثة بهذا التقدم؟ وهل كان علماء الغرب أداة في يد الاستعمار وأهدافه؟ في هذه الحلقة الجديدة من برنامج ما علينا يصحبنا عبد الله الترك من داخل المكتبة؛ ليكشف بالوثائق والمراجع الوجه المظلم للمؤسسة العلمية الغربية، وكيف أسسوا أسطورة الحياد المعرفي على أنقاض الشعوب المنهوبة، وكيف استخدموا العلم كأداة للهيمنة والاستعمار... 📍 لا تفوت مشاهدة …
❤11👍1
يزعمون أن الرجوع للمعاجم اللغوية واستقراء ألفاظ القرآن سيهدم فهم التراث ويثبت تأويلاتهم المعاصرة... فماذا يحدث حين نلزمهم بقواعدهم ذاتها؟ 📍 لا تفوت مشاهدة الحلقة كاملة عبر الرابط 👇 https://x.com/rawasekh/status/2112967157537444129?s=20 #رواسخ #اختراق_منصه_مجتمع
❤14
هل كل عمل يريح قلبي صحيح شرعًا؟ لا تفوتوا مشاهدة الحلقة كاملة من هنا 👇 https://youtu.be/SSdf5Nr_Mzc?si=IvZDrkrqP-ntJohi #رواسخ #فصل_بودكاست
❤7
نشرنا ألبومًا يحكي قصة المدرسة، فتفاعلتم معنا بالتعليقات التي أسعدتنا.. فقررنا نشر بعضها ومشاركتها معكم؛ لأننا نهتم بها ونريد صناعة محتوى يناسبكم. 📍لا تترددوا في المشاركة، ولا تنسوا مشاهدة حلقة ظلال عن المدرسة والتعليم عبر الرابط 👇 https://youtu.be/5XdHdWj3VdQ?si=eS-HeQFj7QzxLIUH #رواسخ
❤22
في وضح النهار، مؤتمرات صحفية أنيقة، وبيانات رنانة عن الحريات، وسيادة القانون، والديمقراطية... وتحت الطاولة، صفقات أسلحة وتوريد قنابل تُسقط على رؤوس الأطفال والنساء في الخيام والمستشفيات! 📍 شاهد الحلقة كاملة عبر الرابط👇 https://youtu.be/aAmSTrKUWlc?si=CGv_k1RMKSH-QtIQ #رواسخ #ما_علينا
❤19
شاركنا رأيك بالتعليقات 💬 #رواسخ #ما_علينا
❤9
ماذا فعل الاحتلال البريطاني بدار العلوم؟ لا تفوتوا مشاهدة الحلقة كاملة من هنا 👇 https://youtu.be/ko6QvCK2m94?si=25F864UhlJwLkeQM #رواسخ #ظلال_بودكاست
❤13
هل أصبح مجلس الأمن هو حقيقة الدين؟ وهل يمكن أن يكون الدين مجرد قانون عقوبات جزائية؟ في الحلقة الثانية من برنامج #اختراق_منصة_مجتمع يأخذنا الدكتور #صهيب_السقار في رحلة عميقة لأخطر الأطروحات التي تروج لها منصة "مجتمع"؛ تحريف مفهوم الدين والإسلام! في هذه الحلقة نكشف لكم: - كيف يتم تفريغ الدين من محتواه الإلهي والغيبي؟ - هل تحول القتال في سبيل الله إلى حماية لقانون العقوبات المدني؟ - لماذا يرى "أبو عواد" أن مجلس الأمن …
❤37👍7
أخطر أشكال التحريف تحصل عند إبقاء ألفاظ القرآن في الواجهة، لكن مع تفريغ بواطنها من أي صلة بالوحي أو التوحيد... تمامًا كما تدخل المعادن الصلبة في أفران الصهر لتفقد تماسكها وتتشكل بحسب القالب المفروض. وهكذا أُدخلت مصطلحات الشريعة الكبرى في أفران منصة مجتمع؛ لتخرج بصورة هلامية جديدة لا علاقة لها بما عرفته الأمة عبر القرون. عندها يسلبون الكلمات أصلها، ليحل محلها دين جديد مفصّل على مقاس النظم المعاصرة وأهوائها. طالعوا …
❤16👍4
Showing the 12 most recent of 247 posts we hold for @Rawasekh. 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.
@Rawasekh edited 9 posts 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.
The 6 most recent of 15 polls we hold for this entry, as Telegram rendered them when we read the post. A poll’s figures keep moving after that, so each one is dated.
ما المحرك الرئيسي وراء اشتعال الحروب في منطقتنا اليوم؟
The shares total 178%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
ما المسار التعليمي الأنسب حاليًا من وجهة نظرك؟
The shares total 134%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
أين يكمن الخلل الأكبر في منظومة التعليم في عالمنا العربي اليوم؟
The shares total 253%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
جميعنا ندرك خطر العدو.. لكن لماذا يحاول البعض التطبيع معهم؟
The shares total 157%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
كيف تحوّل العداء الصليبي القديم مع اليهود إلى تحالف استراتيجي في العصر الحديث؟
The shares total 199%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
لماذا نخطئ في فهم التاريخ الإسلامي؟
The shares total 169%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
Percentages only — there are no per-option vote counts here, because Telegram publishes none. The public post preview gives each option’s share and a single voter total, and nothing else. Multiplying one by the other would produce a per-option tally that looks measured and is not: the shares are rounded to whole numbers before we ever see them. We print what was published and leave the column that does not exist empty.
The shares need not add up to 100. Rounding alone puts many polls at 99 or 101. A poll that allows more than one answer per voter runs well past 100 by design, and several here do. The bars are drawn against a fixed 100% track at each option’s own percentage rather than normalised to the total, so a poll that exceeds it shows that it does instead of being quietly rescaled.
Read from the 247 most recent posts we hold, published 3 August 2026 to 25 October 2026. Telegram labels each poll by kind — an anonymous poll, a quiz, a closed set of final results — and that label is reproduced rather than paraphrased.
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
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 7 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.
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.
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 5 September 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 8 seed channels' Telegram-generated recommendation lists in total. 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 25 October 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“رواسخ” (@Rawasekh), 31,687 subscribers as measured 25 October 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/Rawasekh.
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.