Difference Between Qadianis and Lahori Ahmadis

[Rationalist]

In your last post your said 'My point is not to deny that Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is the Last of the Prophets. Of course he is the Last.'

So my question is how do Qadianis differ from Lahoris?

Also, why do the Qadianis use the 73 sects hadith when they themselves split into two?

[ZulFiqar]

In your last post your said 'My point is not to deny that Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is the Last of the Prophets. Of course he is the Last.'

So my question is how do Qadianis differ from Lahoris?

Also, why do the Qadianis use the 73 sects hadith when they themselves split into two?

Your last point was put to Ansar Reza in his debate with Sadat Anwar of the Muslim Debate Initiative

Ansar Reza answered by saying that his Jama'at consider the Lahori faction as part of the 72 misguided sects.

The difference between the Qadiyan/Rabwah group (which is 99% of Ahmadis) and the tiny Lahore faction is not theological but difference over policy and administration of the movement. However, the Lahore faction believe that sayyidina Eisa عليه السلام had a biological father and reject belief in the virgin birth. They have written many books on this topic such as Wiladat al Masih despite the fact that Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani affirmed belief in the virgin birth of Jesus.

Regarding the issue of Finality of Prophethood, the difference between the two branches is in reality semantic and not substantial. The Lahore group made a hue and cry over this issue in order to justify the split as having a theological basis.

As I said, the split was due to a difference of interpretation regarding the Khilafa. Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani wrote his al-Wasiyyat (the Will) in 1905 predicting his near death on the basis of Ilham. You can read the English translation of that book
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/thewill/the_will.pdf

Now in this book Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani says that after his death Allah will manifest His Qudrat al-Thaniya (Second manifestation of His Power) and re-establish and strengthen the community which will obviously be in a state of disarray and weakness at the time of the death of its founder. He gives the example of the death of Moses and the death of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, and states how Allah protected the Umma in that sensitive time by raising up sayyidina Abu Bakr رضى الله عنه as the first Khalifa. This is what he calls "Qudrat al-Thaniya". So he says something similar will happen for his Jama'at when he dies. And this is why Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani did not name an individual successor to succeed him. But in the book al-Wasiyyat he says that the committee he set up consisting of the senior members of his movement called the Anjuman is responsible for administration of certain affairs, such as taking care of the cemetery Beheshti Maqbara, and being a trust to have custody over the funds donated by the members, etc.

Now when Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani died, the community recognised his senior disciple and right hand man Hakim Nooruddin as his first successor. Then when Nooruddin died 6 years later in 1914, the community split. The Lahore faction, let by Maulana Muhammad Ali, claimed that Nooruddin was simply a figurehead and spiritual leader of the community, but he wasn't a Khalifa in the sense of the Khulafa al Rashidin. The Lahore faction argued that the true executive leadership of the community is not vested in a single individual but in the Anjuman (a council). However, the Qadian branch elected Ghulam Ahmad's son Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, as the second successor and considered him the executive of the Jama'at.

You can also read Mirza Mahmud Ahmad's book Truth about the Split which explains in detail the events and causes that resulted in this schism
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Truth-about-the-Split.pdf

[Rationalist]

Your last point was put to Ansar Reza in his debate with Sadat Anwar of the Muslim Debate Initiative

Ansar Reza answered by saying that his Jama'at consider the Lahori faction as part of the 72 misguided sects.

So Qadianis say they are the 73rd sect, but how did Lahoris go back into the 72? The split came after.

The difference between the Qadiyan/Rabwah group (which is 99% of Ahmadis) and the tiny Lahore faction is not theological but difference over policy and administration of the movement. However, the Lahore faction believe that sayyidina Eisa عليه السلام had a biological father and reject belief in the virgin birth. They have written many books on this topic such as Wiladat al Masih despite the fact that Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani affirmed belief in the virgin birth of Jesus.

Do they believe its Joseph\Yusuf? Also, do they believe Mary had a secret marriage?

Regarding the issue of Finality of Prophethood, the difference between the two branches is in reality semantic and not substantial. The Lahore group made a hue and cry over this issue in order to justify the split as having a theological basis.

In their view you don't believe in the finally of Prophethood because Mirza is a Prophet. Yet they take Mizra to be a saintly figure.

As I said, the split was due to a difference of interpretation regarding the Khilafa. Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani wrote his al-Wasiyyat (the Will) in 1905 predicting his near death on the basis of Ilham. You can read the English translation of that book
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/thewill/the_will.pdf

Now in this book Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani says that after his death Allah will manifest His Qudrat al-Thaniya (Second manifestation of His Power) and re-establish and strengthen the community which will obviously be in a state of disarray and weakness at the time of the death of its founder. He gives the example of the death of Moses and the death of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, and states how Allah protected the Umma in that sensitive time by raising up sayyidina Abu Bakr رضى الله عنه as the first Khalifa. This is what he calls "Qudrat al-Thaniya". So he says something similar will happen for his Jama'at when he dies. And this is why Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani did not name an individual successor to succeed him. But in the book al-Wasiyyat he says that the committee he set up consisting of the senior members of his movement called the Anjuman is responsible for administration of certain affairs, such as taking care of the cemetery Beheshti Maqbara, and being a trust to have custody over the funds donated by the members, etc.


Now when Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani died, the community recognised his senior disciple and right hand man Hakim Nooruddin as his first successor. Then when Nooruddin died 6 years later in 1914, the community split. The Lahore faction, let by Maulana Muhammad Ali, claimed that Nooruddin was simply a figurehead and spiritual leader of the community, but he wasn't a Khalifa in the sense of the Khulafa al Rashidin. The Lahore faction argued that the true executive leadership of the community is not vested in a single individual but in the Anjuman (a council). However, the Qadian branch elected Ghulam Ahmad's son Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, as the second successor and considered him the executive of the Jama'at.

You can also read Mirza Mahmud Ahmad's book Truth about the Split which explains in detail the events and causes that resulted in this schism
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Truth-about-the-Split.pdf[/size][/font]

The example of Abi Bakr is not valid. The reason is we have some Ansaar, Hashimis, and even Saad ibn Utbah who opposed the Calipahate of Abi Bakr. However, this again will go into another topic.

[ZulFiqar]

So Qadianis say they are the 73rd sect, but how did Lahoris go back into the 72? The split came after.

The split came afterward, but the beliefs and theology of the Lahore faction is such that it is simply a continuation of the way and beliefs of the 1 of the 72 deviated sects. As you know the Ulama have explained the Hadith of the 72 deviated sects as meaning 72 branches of deviation, or 72 major innovations. Obviously there are thousands upon thousands of little sects and subsects, but if they from the Umma, all of their deviations can be traced back and branching off from 1 of the 72 major deviations.

Do they believe its Joseph\Yusuf? Also, do they believe Mary had a secret marriage?

Yes, the Lahoris believe that Yusuf al-Najjar, i.e., Joseph the Carpenter, was the biological father of sayyidina Eisa (معاذ الله)

You can read some of their books:

Birth of Jesus by Dr. Basharat Ahmad (2005 edition)
http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/others/basharatahmad/birthjesus2005ed/birthjesus2005ed.pdf

In their view you don't believe in the finally of Prophethood because Mirza is a Prophet. Yet they take Mizra to be a saintly figure.

No one believes that Mirza is a prophet just like that. It is more nuanced than that. The Lahori branch prefer the term "Prophet in a metaphorical sense" and the Qadiani branch prefer the term "Ummati Nabi" and "Ghair Tashreei Nabi" or non-Law bearing Prophet. Both accept the terms Zilli and Buroozi Nabi (Shadow or Reflective Prophet) which Ghulam Ahmad used about him. The discussion about these terms and what they mean is quite technical. But essentially, the difference between these 2 groups is nothing substantial it is only semantic and difference over terminology and preference for certain terms of the others.

Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani basically viewed himself as a Prophet in the sense of being the reflection of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم through Fana fil Rasul, and in the sense of receiving frequent Ilham and Visions from Allah, i.e. in the same sense that is acceptable to the Sufis. He did not say he was a Prophet in a real sense or independently of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم like the previous prophets (Adam to Jesus).

The example of Abi Bakr is not valid. The reason is we have some Ansaar, Hashimis, and even Saad ibn Utbah who opposed the Calipahate of Abi Bakr. However, this again will go into another topic.

It was Saad b. Ubada al-Ansari (not Utba) who did not pledge allegiance to sayyidina Abi Bakr رضى الله عنها but as for the Bani Hashim and rest of the Ansaar, they all eventually pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr and recognised him as the first successor. And that is a fact of history that Abu Bakr was the Prophet's first successor, whether people think it was illegitimate is another story, but it is a historical fact that he did lead the community after the Prophet's death.

[Rationalist]

[
The split came afterward, but the beliefs and theology of the Lahore faction is such that it is simply a continuation of the way and beliefs of the 1 of the 72 deviated sects. As you know the Ulama have explained the Hadith of the 72 deviated sects as meaning 72 branches of deviation, or 72 major innovations. Obviously there are thousands upon thousands of little sects and subsects, but if they from the Umma, all of their deviations can be traced back and branching off from 1 of the 72 major deviations.

The Qadianis say they are the 73rd sect, wouldn't the Lahoris then become sect number 74?

Birth of Jesus by Dr. Basharat Ahmad (2005 edition)
http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/others/basharatahmad/birthjesus2005ed/birthjesus2005ed.pdf[/size][/font]

I am not even going to bother. To me Joseph did not even exist.

No one believes that Mirza is a prophet just like that. It is more nuanced than that. The Lahori branch prefer the term "Prophet in a metaphorical sense" and the Qadiani branch prefer the term "Ummati Nabi" and "Ghair Tashreei Nabi" or non-Law bearing Prophet. Both accept the terms Zilli and Buroozi Nabi (Shadow or Reflective Prophet) which Ghulam Ahmad used about him. The discussion about these terms and what they mean is quite technical. But essentially, the difference between these 2 groups is nothing substantial it is only semantic and difference over terminology and preference for certain terms of the others.

I think you guys use the term subordinate Prophet. Do you believe there were any suborinate Prophets? Also, did Mizra Prophesize any other suboridinate Prophets to come? Or can another subordinate Prophet come?

Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani basically viewed himself as a Prophet in the sense of being the reflection of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم through Fana fil Rasul, and in the sense of receiving frequent Ilham and Visions from Allah, i.e. in the same sense that is acceptable to the Sufis. He did not say he was a Prophet in a real sense or independently of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم like the previous prophets (Adam to Jesus).[/size][/font]

Do any of the Sufi saints qualify as Subordinate Prophets in the Qadiani view?

[Rationalist]

The split came afterward, but the beliefs and theology of the Lahore faction is such that it is simply a continuation of the way and beliefs of the 1 of the 72 deviated sects. As you know the Ulama have explained the Hadith of the 72 deviated sects as meaning 72 branches of deviation, or 72 major innovations. Obviously there are thousands upon thousands of little sects and subsects, but if they from the Umma, all of their deviations can be traced back and branching off from 1 of the 72 major deviations.

The Qadianis say they are the 73rd sect, wouldn't the Lahoris then become sect number 74?

Birth of Jesus by Dr. Basharat Ahmad (2005 edition)
http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/others/basharatahmad/birthjesus2005ed/birthjesus2005ed.pdf[/size][/font]

I am not even going to bother. To me Joseph did not even exist.

No one believes that Mirza is a prophet just like that. It is more nuanced than that. The Lahori branch prefer the term "Prophet in a metaphorical sense" and the Qadiani branch prefer the term "Ummati Nabi" and "Ghair Tashreei Nabi" or non-Law bearing Prophet. Both accept the terms Zilli and Buroozi Nabi (Shadow or Reflective Prophet) which Ghulam Ahmad used about him. The discussion about these terms and what they mean is quite technical. But essentially, the difference between these 2 groups is nothing substantial it is only semantic and difference over terminology and preference for certain terms of the others.

I think you guys use the term subordinate Prophet. Do you believe there were any suborinate Prophets? Also, did Mizra Prophesize any other suboridinate Prophets to come? Or can another subordinate Prophet come?

Also can you comment on these saying from MGA?
"I do not claim that I am the same Mahdi who will come according to (words of Hadith) 'from the son of Fatima and from my progeny' etc." (Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya V, Roohani Khazain vol.21 p.356)

"We admit this that several Mahdis may have come before and possibly will come in future as well and probably someone by the name of Imam Muhammad may also appear." (Roohani Khazain vol.3 p.379)
·"It is possible and quite possible that at some time in future such Messiah may appear upon whom the literal words of Hadith(of Holy Prophet) fit, because this humble self has not come with the Reign and Command of this world, but with poverty and humility." (Izala-e-Auham, Roohani Khazain vol 3 p.197)
·"It is possible that in future no Messiah may come. It is possible 10,000 more Messiah may come and one of them may descend in Damascus." (Izala-e-Auham, Roohani Khazain vol 3 p.251)

Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani basically viewed himself as a Prophet in the sense of being the reflection of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم through Fana fil Rasul, and in the sense of receiving frequent Ilham and Visions from Allah, i.e. in the same sense that is acceptable to the Sufis. He did not say he was a Prophet in a real sense or independently of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم like the previous prophets (Adam to Jesus).[/size][/font]

Do any of the Sufi saints qualify as Subordinate Prophets in the Qadiani view?

[ZulFiqar]

The Qadianis say they are the 73rd sect, wouldn't the Lahoris then become sect number 74?

Sir you didn't understand what I said or at least make an attempt to. 72 sects are 72 deviated ideas that every deviated sect past present and future are included in. One of the innovations that would characterise one of those 72 deviated ideas is to reject Khilafa and to separate from the Jama'ah. The Lahori party falls into this innovation and deviation. Not just them, but all sects and groups which fell into this mistake they constitute 1 of the 72 deviated sects.

For example, another 1 of the 72 deviated sects are all those sects and groups which reject the Karamat of the Awliya, such as the Mu'tazila. The Lahoris, who reject the virgin birth of Jesus, are included in this category too. So it doesn't matter how many sects appeared in past or will appear in future, if there is similarity in their ideas they are included within the same category.

To me Joseph did not even exist.

On what basis do you say that? He was not the father of Jesus but nevertheless a historical figure. So what is your proof that he didn't exist?

I think you guys use the term subordinate Prophet. Do you believe there were any suborinate Prophets? Also, did Mizra Prophesize any other suboridinate Prophets to come? Or can another subordinate Prophet come?

Ghulam Ahmad did not predict the coming of any specific subordinate Prophet after him, but he mentioned generally that the window to this type of Nubuwwah is open.

Also can you comment on these saying from MGA?
"I do not claim that I am the same Mahdi who will come according to (words of Hadith) 'from the son of Fatima and from my progeny' etc." (Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya V, Roohani Khazain vol.21 p.356)

"We admit this that several Mahdis may have come before and possibly will come in future as well and probably someone by the name of Imam Muhammad may also appear." (Roohani Khazain vol.3 p.379)

Ghulam Ahmad recognised that Mahdi is a title and there could come several Mahdis. He claimed to be that Mahdi concerning whom Imam Baqir said the sun and moon would be eclipsed during the month of Ramadan as one of his signs (Daraqutuni sharif). He did not claim to be that Mahdi who will be from the progeny of Sayyida Fatima رضى الله عنها. Mahdi simply means "guided one". In some Hadith Jesus himself is called Mahdi and in 1 Hadith the Prophet named his Khulafa al rashidin as "Mahdiyeen"

·"It is possible and quite possible that at some time in future such Messiah may appear upon whom the literal words of Hadith(of Holy Prophet) fit, because this humble self has not come with the Reign and Command of this world, but with poverty and humility." (Izala-e-Auham, Roohani Khazain vol 3 p.197)
·"It is possible that in future no Messiah may come. It is possible 10,000 more Messiah may come and one of them may descend in Damascus." (Izala-e-Auham, Roohani Khazain vol 3 p.251)

[/b]


Yes he is talking about possibility, but not making an actual prediction. He is saying it is possible that a man named Eisa bin Mariam will be born and come from the east of Damascus and thus fulfill the signs of the Hadith literally.

Do any of the Sufi saints qualify as Subordinate Prophets in the Qadiani view?

According to the Ahmadiyya, Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani is the superior saint of the Umma who was ever born and none can come after him who can reach his level. The previous great Sufi saints like Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Jilani رحمة الله عليه could be included in the same category. Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Jilani is reported to have said:

اني كنت فنانا في رسول الله ولم يكن في ذلك الوقت فلا انا وانما كنت محمدا

“I was annihilated in Rasulullah Sallallahu alaihi wasallam, so at that time I was not myself, but I was Muhammad.”

Reference: Saif al-Rabbani, p.100

http://islamsalvationfromhell.blogspot.ca/2015/08/sufi-shaikh-abdul-qadir-al-jilani-claim.html

[Rationalist]

On what basis do you say that? He was not the father of Jesus but nevertheless a historical figure. So what is your proof that he didn't exist?

I don't trust the Israeliyath narrations.
Also these verses show there was no Yusuf.

19:18
She said, "Indeed, I seek refuge in the Most Merciful from you, [so leave me], if you should be fearing of Allah ."

19:19


He said, "I am only the messenger of your Lord to give you [news of] a pure boy."

19:20



She said, "How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?"

According to the Ahmadiyya, Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani is the superior saint of the Umma who was ever born and none can come after him who can reach his level. The previous great Sufi saints like Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Jilani رحمة الله عليه could be included in the same category. Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Jilani is reported to have said:

By definition who else is defined as a Suborinate Prophet by Qadianis who isn't just a high level saint? Is Mirza the only one?

[ZulFiqar]

I don't trust the Israeliyath narrations.
Also these verses show there was no Yusuf.

19:18
She said, "Indeed, I seek refuge in the Most Merciful from you, [so leave me], if you should be fearing of Allah ."

19:19

He said, "I am only the messenger of your Lord to give you [news of] a pure boy."

19:20

She said, "How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?"

The verses you quoted only prove that Mary was a virgin and unmarried until that point. There is no explicit or even implicit denial of the fact that she did not get married later on after the birth of Jesus. Why is it so hard for you to believe that Mary married Joseph the Carpenter and even had other children with him? There is mention of this in the New Testament. In fact there are inferences in it that Jesus himself married. Marrying is an act of piety.

By definition who else is defined as a Suborinate Prophet by Qadianis who isn't just a high level saint? Is Mirza the only one?

Here there is the reality of manifesting an aspect of Nubuwwah or partial Nubuwwah which thousands of Awliya did, and the particular issue of being called a Nabi. Ghulam Ahmad and the rest of the Awliya are alike in the sense that they all manifested something of Nubuwwah, but Ghulam Ahmad is unique according to the Ahmadiyya in alone being named as a Nabi because he claimed to be the promised Messiah who has a proof for being named as a Nabi in the Hadith of Sahih Muslim. Thus they were all characterised as having the rang or color of subordinate Nubuwwah, but only Ghulam Ahmad, according to the Ahmadiyya interpretation, can actually be named as a subordinate Nabi.

Another way to explain this is that the subordinate Nubuwwah is not a fixed value. It is a range that within it there is a lot of fluidity. This is because this type of Nubuwwah is Qasbi instead of the independent Nubuwwah which is Wahbi. So the Awliya of Allah are all in different degrees depending on their level of piety and worship. Conceptualize it as if there are two ladders one on top of the other vertically. The lower ladder represents Wilaya and the top ladder represents Nubuwwah. In between these two ladders, there is the highest rung of the lower ladder and the lowest rung of the highest ladder. The Ahmadiyya believe that Ghulam Ahmad occupies that position where Wilaya blends and intersects with Nubuwwah, but is still a position that is technically not independent Nubuwwah. The rest of the Awliya all occupy the rungs of the lower ladder, some higher than others. But Ghulam Ahmad is at the top of the ladder of Wilaya and at the bottom of the ladder of Nubuwwah.

[Rationalist]

The verses you quoted only prove that Mary was a virgin and unmarried until that point. There is no explicit or even implicit denial of the fact that she did not get married later on after the birth of Jesus. Why is it so hard for you to believe that Mary married Joseph the Carpenter and even had other children with him? There is mention of this in the New Testament. In fact there are inferences in it that Jesus himself married. Marrying is an act of piety.

I replied in the context of what you said about the Lahori group.
Yes, the Lahoris believe that Yusuf al-Najjar, i.e., Joseph the Carpenter, was the biological father of sayyidina Eisa (معاذ الله).

As for the aftermath, I am only worried about what is in the Quran. What happened other than that will not effect my aqeeda. Maybe someone like Reza Aslan can give you an analysis what happened after. Also, as I stated, I wish the Israeliyat did not make its way into our hadith. It has caused a big issue when it comes to hadith.

As for the rest of the information I need to give a background. I had a debate with an Ahmadi girl years ago. This was back in 2002. To be honest, your view shows that there is not much difference between the Lahori view and the Qadiani view.

Also, this girl actually said that Qadianis are the 73rd sect  in a literal sense and no sect will come in the future. When I pointed out Lahori, she ignored me. When I presented views from the Lahori sect about the finally of Prophethood, she again ignored me.

So this is the reason I made these points. Let me read up more about this topic, and I will ask more questions.

[ZulFiqar]

I replied in the context of what you said about the Lahori group.
Yes, the Lahoris believe that Yusuf al-Najjar, i.e., Joseph the Carpenter, was the biological father of sayyidina Eisa (معاذ الله).

Well you said that you doubted the very existence of Joseph the carpenter:

To me Joseph did not even exist.

Also, as I stated, I wish the Israeliyat did not make its way into our hadith. It has caused a big issue when it comes to hadith.

This too is a strange statement because there is no mention of Joseph the Carpenter in any Hadith.

So what do you mean that there are Israeliyat in the Hadith? Are you referring to Marfoo Hadith of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم when you say "Hadith"?

[Rationalist]

I replied in the context of what you said about the Lahori group.
Yes, the Lahoris believe that Yusuf al-Najjar, i.e., Joseph the Carpenter, was the biological father of sayyidina Eisa (معاذ الله).

Well you said that you doubted the very existence of Joseph the carpenter:

To me Joseph did not even exist.

Also, as I stated, I wish the Israeliyat did not make its way into our hadith. It has caused a big issue when it comes to hadith.

This too is a strange statement because there is no mention of Joseph the Carpenter in any Hadith.

So what do you mean that there are Israeliyat in the Hadith? Are you referring to Marfoo Hadith of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم when you say "Hadith"?

Since there is no hadith it would be equal to accepting an Israeliyath narration.

[ZulFiqar]

Since there is no hadith it would be equal to accepting an Israeliyath narration.

There's 2 sides to that coin. We neither affirm nor deny the Israeeliyat. And you denied the existence of Joseph Carpenter. Should have just said "I don't know"

[Rationalist]

There's 2 sides to that coin. We neither affirm nor deny the Israeeliyat. And you denied the existence of Joseph Carpenter. Should have just said "I don't know"

This is like a 12er Shia forcing me to believe in the possibility of the 12th Imam existing. On top of that he will also be able to reference many Sufi Saints who confirmed his existence.  Yet I still say I don't believe in it. Likewise, I am not going to say I don't know about Joseph, I am going to say he doesn't exist.

[ZulFiqar]

This is like a 12er Shia forcing me to believe in the possibility of the 12th Imam existing. On top of that he will also be able to reference many Sufi Saints who confirmed his existence.  Yet I still say I don't believe in it. Likewise, I am not going to say I don't know about Joseph, I am going to say he doesn't exist.

Flawed analogy. If there is documentation to the contrary, as is in the case of the 12th Imam, that is the reason why people doubt his existence.

[Rationalist]

This is like a 12er Shia forcing me to believe in the possibility of the 12th Imam existing. On top of that he will also be able to reference many Sufi Saints who confirmed his existence.  Yet I still say I don't believe in it. Likewise, I am not going to say I don't know about Joseph, I am going to say he doesn't exist.

Flawed analogy. If there is documentation to the contrary, as is in the case of the 12th Imam, that is the reason why people doubt his existence.

This is like a 12er Shia forcing me to believe in the possibility of the 12th Imam existing. On top of that he will also be able to reference many Sufi Saints who confirmed his existence.  Yet I still say I don't believe in it. Likewise, I am not going to say I don't know about Joseph, I am going to say he doesn't exist.

Flawed analogy. If there is documentation to the contrary, as is in the case of the 12th Imam, that is the reason why people doubt his existence.

When Mirza's own right man Shaikh Qamar-ud-Din had another conclusion, Mirza said he will wait for a revelation. Since, he didn't know, instead of saying 'I don't know', he said I will follow the majority of Muslim view.

“Once Hazrat Mirza asked Shaikh Qamar-ud-Din of Jhelum to show him the verses of the Quran from which the Shaikh had concluded that Jesus had a father. At first, the Shaikh sahib, out of respect for Hazrat Mirza, remained silent. But upon Hazrat Mirza repeating the question, he mentioned the arguments from the Quran that he knew. Hearing the arguments, Hazrat Mirza said: ‘Your arguments are certainly strong, but until God gives me to understand this point, I will follow the views of the majority of Muslims’. ... Hazrat Mirza said to Hakim Fazal Din [who had complained about Shaikh sahib’s belief]: ‘How can you declare as heretic someone who bases his arguments on the Quran?’” (Mujaddid Azam, Life of Hazrat Mirza, vol. ii, p. 1342)

[ZulFiqar]

“Once Hazrat Mirza asked Shaikh Qamar-ud-Din of Jhelum to show him the verses of the Quran from which the Shaikh had concluded that Jesus had a father. At first, the Shaikh sahib, out of respect for Hazrat Mirza, remained silent. But upon Hazrat Mirza repeating the question, he mentioned the arguments from the Quran that he knew. Hearing the arguments, Hazrat Mirza said: ‘Your arguments are certainly strong, but until God gives me to understand this point, I will follow the views of the majority of Muslims’. ... Hazrat Mirza said to Hakim Fazal Din [who had complained about Shaikh sahib’s belief]: ‘How can you declare as heretic someone who bases his arguments on the Quran?’” (Mujaddid Azam, Life of Hazrat Mirza, vol. ii, p. 1342)

Why do you think I'm arguing that Jesus had a father (God forbid)?

We are discussing the existence of Joseph Carpenter whom you denied exists. Does the existence of Joseph Carpenter automatically mean he was Jesus's father? Your username is "Rationalist" but it seems you didn't study basic logic.

And the Muslim majority view is based on evidence. There is no evidence to deny the existence of Joseph Carpenter

[Rationalist]

so why did Mirza say the argument is strong?

[ZulFiqar]

so why did Mirza say the argument is strong?

Because it is a strong argument if you actually acquaint yourself with it, especially their arguments from the Holy Qur'an. But a strong argument doesn't mean it is definite or conclusive. The fact that sayyidina Eisa al Nasiri عليه السلام was born without the agency of a father is based on not only stronger but definite evidence from the Quran and Sunna. This is why Ghulam Ahmad, being an open minded person so he considered their argument, but finally dismissed it and remained upon the belief of the rest of the Umma in this regard.

And as for a rational and scientific basis in defending the virgin birth, no one has come close to the excellent arguments presented by Ghulam Ahmad's fourth successor and grandson Mirza Tahir Ahmad in his beautiful book Christianity: A Journey from Facts to Fiction

[Rationalist]

I did a search through the Christian view, and most of them are in an agreement with Lahori sect that Joseph was already married to Mary. So why would you argue that it happened after? Is this a Qadiani belief?