Peace Destino
You say above that Baghiyya means 'a woman of loose morals' I would tend to say it is more like 'a loose woman' or more clearly 'an unchaste woman'.
Either way the definitions are not separated by a chasm of difference. They are very close in meaning to one another.
Again ibnu or bintu or zurriyatu are not the same in meaning I agree but are very close in meaning. I agree that zuriyyat means progeny or offspring or that which is the seed of. In any case it holds a very physical meaning.
The phrase 'zurriyat-ul-baghiyya' however needs to be analysed.
a) Linguistically the exact form of this phrase is possessor :- possessed the possessor being definite. It means 'progeny of the unchaste woman'
Here all deniers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad are being called the children of some unchaste woman. Who is this woman? The form of phrase is such that the woman in question is already defined and only one mother this 'unchaste woman' is the mother of ALL deniers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. This presents a linguisitic discontinuity. It could take a metaphoric form, but then this claim needs substantiation i.e. reference and an explanation thereof. A reason why this also cannot fit is listed below:
b) Your argument above is also not consistent. Where you have written 'Doesn't mean that men are wishing to give birth'. I would contest that not in any of your definitions is it being said that 'man is wishing to give birth' so this is a pointless issue to raise.
c) The phrase needs to be analysed for correctness. If this is simply not a slanderous remark then it needs to hold truth and that truth needs to be verifiable. So let's see if truly all deniers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad are children of that unchaste woman. Supposing this woman exists, is it true that the mother of all deniers is a single unchaste woman or unchaste at all. Of course this is not true, many people with their own individual mothers are denying Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and many if not most of those mothers are in happily married chaste families. Also what of those people who grow up in Ahmadi households but they themselves accept mainstream Islam then though they deny Mirza Ghulam Ahmad their own mothers do not. So we can see this sweeping statement cannot be true on many logical levels. In which case it is looking more like a slanderous statement than one of fact.
The argument that Qur'an equally defames people to support the defaming of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is therefore uncouth, because when the Qur'an defames them in what it says about them can easily be ratified with logic as ringing TRUE. However, in this case of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's verbal antics .... NO.
d) So now we have one more option perhaps like his majority of words perhaps this is a METAPHORIC statement and not a literal one. (Perhaps when he calls himself Isa (AS) and a prophet it is metaphoric ... considered that one?) Should this be the case then what could it mean? Could it mean that the maqam of those people who deny Mirza Ghulam Ahmad have the same maqam (status) as those who would be 'children of the unchaste woman'. So again we have to define who is this unchaste woman? And what crime has a child committed to BE the son or daughter of an unchaste woman? Because someones mother has been unchaste it does not predetermine them to be equally so. They could be very good and pious people. So why is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad defaming the person by actually defmaing the metaphoric or literal mother?
It becomes a hollow argument a pointless inanity!
One can argue to complex allegorical levels too. That 'the unchaste woman' is the personification of 'unchaste behaviour' and the 'progeny' which is a literal term but nonetheless actually means 'to a lesser extent' then translates to mean 'minor unchastity'. So the allegation is that such people who deny him have committed a 'minor unchaste act'. Being somewhat far fetched like most of your explanations of his terminology should this be the case then it needs to be shown WHY this is an unchaste thing to do to reject Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
And one needs to ask is why use such 'graphic phrases' to mean something else?
The concept of the Empreror's New Clothes is at play here. The allegation that if no one can see the king's clothes then he is stupid makes people say that they 'see' his clothes. Likewise this statement is intended to be a psychological trap for those unsuspecting meek people of his time to accept his claim out of fear of being branded ... 'progeny of the unchaste woman'.
The rejection of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is purely because he has bent everything towards himself and even clear statements are worked around into metaphor. The mother is a sacrosanct entity. When in school I used to face arguments with my friends some of them would say your mother this and mother that. It creates a breach of protocol the line has been crossed and it becomes a thing hurtful and sinister. If this is METAPHORIC statement then why is it being cast on a an audience who are not familiar with such verbal gymnastics? They like any normal person will assume the direct meaning. And it is linguistically deficient also!
This level of discussion can be put across for all of the points raised in this thread.
Regarding to your whole post, I have only one QUESTION! Why would you tend to say "a loose woman" or a "unchaste woman"? Since 2-3 pages we are discussing this thing. Is this the last proof of your side that he was not Mahdi? Or do you have more proofs.
People can only come with their own intepretation. It's a BIG SURPRISE to me that he had been called **"THE CHAMPION OF ISLAM" when he broke the cross and killed the swine with his great knowledge, but AS SOON AS he claimed to be the MADHI, the great MUSLIM SCHOLARS of that time called him LIAR. CONTRADICTING ISN'T IT?
Leave all the arguments aside, just being called the "CHAMPION OF ISLAM" is enoug to claim to be the Mahdi. Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa (saw) was the Champion of Islam, too and he was was a Prophet.
**