SJ: Your point is incorrect. I already explained why, but I see I have to re-explain it. Before that though I will point out that you’re rude, judging by your willingness to call me “evil” and call Simcha “stupid”. Whether I am RZ or not is irrelevant to the conversation other than you being utterly incapable of politeness toward anyone who may be RZ. Even if I am, that doesn’t give you the right to be rude or disrespectful.
To my point. Again. Rambam does not include a miraculous redemption in the 13 ikkarim and never makes that sort of claim; you insisting otherwise is a direct contradiction of the Rambam’s own words in the Mishneh Torah. He clearly states a lack of the supernatural in Hilchos Melachim. In fact, he doesn’t mention it or insist on it anywhere in his writings and he limits miracles. But I’ve already said all of this. You are attempting to uproot Rambam’s actual philosophy in favor of Ramban and Raavad, which you are more comfortable with because it matches your beliefs. On top of that, Rambam clearly states that when the literal meaning of a verse or a Midrash contradicts demonstrated scientific or philosophical truth, the text must be reinterpreted. By saying the Rambam “aligns” with all Chazal, you are forced to claim that Chazal also intended these philosophical allegories (a claim often impossible to sustain without forced interpretations).
Your position also erases the whole controversy over Rambam’s writings. If his approach was in perfect alignment with the Hakhamim who preceded and followed him, the controversy would never have happened. Rashba, Raavad, and Ramban didn’t oppose Rambam because they misunderstood him; they opposed him because they recognized he was doing something radically different. They saw a “space” between his logic and the tradition, and they were deeply concerned by it.
Re rationalism: I would tell you to do some basic research and look up what rationalism is within the context of Hakhamei Sepharad. It’s actually important because whether you like it or not, the distinction is important and it stems from the very different worlds that French, German, and Provencal Jewry were living in compared to that of Andalucia + MENA. But you’re completely unwilling to do so. I assume this is for either Satmar-aligned ideological reasons, a total lack of interest in truth and education, or fear of discovering that you may be wrong. Or perhaps even worse, discovering there is something you don’t know. All this means you really have no clue what you’re talking about.
Also: You can follow Raavad and Ramban all you want. I don’t have to. I can follow Rambam, R. Saadia Gaon, Radak, R. Tanhum Yerushalmi, Ibn Ezra, Ibn Janah, Ralbag and the other heavy hitting Hakhamim who do not understand the relevant Mekoros the way Ramban, Rashba and Raavad do. It’s not a violation of Halacha to do so, it’s not heresy either, despite your wish to the contrary.
(TL;DR: You’re wrong and you’re intentionally warping Rambam’s own words to match your ideology.)
Go and learn. Seriously.