Sorry, but anyone familiar with Michi’s arguments knows very well that he never denied the existence of a few principles—admittedly only a few, like Moses’ prophecy, Torah from Heaven, belief in prophecy, and the like. Overall he only argued the position of those medieval authorities who disputed Maimonides, just in a more up-to-date form. I didn’t see anywhere in the book or elsewhere the striking claim from Inbal’s response: that in Michael Abraham’s view there is no formal authority regarding factual claims, including all the principles!
There seems to be a lack of understanding on Inbal’s part. He apparently can’t believe—or is afraid—that the whole purpose of the Torah is doing good because it is good, and nothing more, and that everything else—the desire to fix various beliefs in place—is a human and understandable result of our being people who want others to heed what we think is good and proper, and that’s all.
It would really be interesting to know why, according to Inbal, the need to define the domain of belief arose specifically among the Sages and not already in the generation of the wilderness, if not for pedagogic, social, or defensive needs during our stay among the nations.
I’ve often heard that the whole discourse of belief arose because of our clash with the nations, or with those who wanted to compete with us or steal our exclusivity regarding the innovation Moses brought down to us at Sinai—and that was: norms, pure and simple norms, nothing more.
It’s hard to accept that exile is really an exile of the mind—meaning our connection to God through true understandings about the world that come directly from Him (or through His prophets).
The urge to deny this is strong; after all, the Sages already established for us: “Her king and her princes are among the nations; there is no Torah,” and even if in some partial way we can still sense something like that prophetic experience through Kabbalah, it is still only something like it, not the thing itself.
Obviously, from a pedagogic standpoint, a certain style of thought is required, one that protects deeper interests and sometimes the less entertaining welfare of the people. But from here to saying that this is the pure truth, and whoever doesn’t believe it is a heretic—that’s really a sign of a deep pathology of exile. Think it through.

Y.M, there really is no formal authority regarding factual claims, because that isn’t defined. I’m afraid you’re not representing your client correctly.

Let me add two more things that ought to give food for thought:
1. Anyone who looks into the Jewish law will see that the medieval authorities also did not obligate more than three or four principles, as far as I recall. See there:
“And what our Rabbi wrote regarding the heretics appears there in the baraita in the text of the Rif and the Rosh. And Maimonides wrote in chapter 4 of the Laws of Murderer that heretics are Israelites who denied the Torah and prophecy, and in chapter 3 of the Laws of Repentance he wrote that one who says there is no prophecy at all, and one who denies the prophecy of Moses our Rabbi, and one who says that the Creator does not know human actions—each of these three is a heretic. And the Ran explained that this means one who disgraces Torah scholars or one who disgraces his fellow in the presence of Torah scholars. And so they said in chapter Helek. And on that which it teaches, ‘shepherds of small livestock are not brought up,’ Tosafot wrote: this means their own animals, that is, because they graze them in other people’s fields; but shepherds of others’ animals, no, because a person does not sin when it is not for his own benefit. And they further wrote that specifically with shepherds they were stringent because they are not disqualified on the Torah level, and the Sages reinforced their words so that they would take heed and repent. But robbers, who are Torah-level offenders, and one who eats carrion out of appetite—they are brought up. And Maimonides wrote in chapter 4 of the Laws of Murderer: shepherds of small livestock and the like are not brought up. When is this said? With an Israelite who is a sinner and persists in his wickedness and repeats it continually, such as shepherds of small livestock who have become lawless regarding theft; they continue in their folly. But with an Israelite who commits transgressions but does not persist in wickedness continually, and rather commits transgressions for his own benefit, such as one who eats carrion out of appetite—it is a commandment to save him, and it is forbidden to stand idly by his blood. End quote.”

https://www.sefaria.org/Beit_Yosef,_Yoreh_Deah_158.3.1

As is well known, in order to become a Jew the Sages never required acceptance of the 13 principles, only acceptance of the yoke of the commandments.
Throughout all of Jewish history they did not stone those who failed to believe in one of the principles, and they also did not excommunicate or consider Spinoza a heretic except from the moment he departed from the path of Jewish law, and nothing more.
If we’re already going by the path of Jewish law, which according to everyone obligates us, and as is well known Maimonides’ own view is that only the Talmud is binding and nothing else—then his statements and reasoning in matters of belief are also, on his own view, not binding!

Rabbi Inbal is talking nonsense.
By the way:
I don’t know whether the Rabbi knows that Rabbi Steinsaltz of blessed memory held like the Rabbi on the issue of Jewish thought [not on the bit about divine inspiration, because after all he was a Hasid, but in terms of authority he also held that there is none].

From his book “My Precious Son”:
“It is true that the formulation of the principles of faith in Judaism is fairly late, etc. And it is also true that these principles of faith never had the force of a binding ‘I believe,’ etc. The existence of this basic unity of opinion did not stem from any central authority that determined what was permitted and forbidden or what the correct path of belief was. A more important source caused that unity of opinion: the recognition of foundational sources that could not be challenged.”

I forgot part of it:
“And the acceptance of defined methods for interpreting those sources and developing them, once the Torah is accepted as the basis and the methods of halakhic midrash as the paths of its legal interpretation.”

A.Y.A. — Rabbi Inbal is a very smart and perceptive Jew; it’s rather ridiculous to rant against him without giving reasons.

*** Deleted: unnecessary personal remark (M.A.) ***

***** Same as above ******

B.K.B. — see the response on the Ratio site and you’ll see a somewhat more detailed argument [mine].
And also, more generally, there’s a lot of apologetics on that site.

B.K.B. — even a smart person sometimes, under pressure, talks nonsense.

Not that I understood the criticism, because Michi does assume that there is theology in Rabbi Inbal’s sense—that is, meaning and essence and implication and reason and benefit to observing the commandments, and that is why the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them—but we as people are not necessarily aware of that theology.
Is Rabbi Inbal expecting theology to be understandable to people, with a message that comes from the Holy One, blessed be He, and is intelligible? I didn’t understand why one must assume that in order not to reduce Jewish law to a set of commands for hand motions.
And what theology does Rabbi Inbal propose, or can he propose? Is the claim that there is a Messiah and resurrection of the dead theology and message?
I personally believe in a “full-bodied” Judaism—I believe in all 13 principles, and also in the truth of the Torah of Kabbalah, and in prayer, and I observe Jewish law no less than those around me, and other things too—but I don’t know what the hidden message is.
I only know, that is, believe, that the Holy One, blessed be He, chose the Jewish people to give it the Torah, and the Torah is the proper and true way to live in the world, and it is the fulfillment of the will of the Holy One, blessed be He; and one who cleaves to the Holy One, blessed be He, and to His Torah does what is right and good, perfects his soul, and a light shines in his soul, and he will merit great reward.

G.L.G, you are completely right. See my response to Inbal’s criticism in this column: https://mikyab.net/posts/81186