Menachem
Even if you would be right regarding the first stage of the takana. You agree that one is yotseh bediavad inside and outside, right ?
So the mitsva is valid anyhow.
The whole Q is on the lechathila of the mitsva. Where is it “better” to light.
Which is the better way to fulfill the mitsva derabannan , which will be acceptable either way.
That has no connection at all to suka where the Q is transgressing a non negotiable issur min hatorah.
Its not going against the words of the SA which is the issue. Its going against the understanding of the torah as encapsulated by mishna gemara rishonim and poskim.
You have to understand that I am not following anyone else with my criticism about this, and most of the people who criticize your rebbi’s svara here also arrive at the same conclusion on their own .
This is a sure indication of the tremendous weakness of this svara.
You could say – we do not understand it and our leader is not any less of a great man even if he makes a mistake. Or you could double down, which makes habads reputation much worse.
Haval that you , plural, are choosing the second route.
I was not biased against habad in any way before encountering those issues, if there is a bias it is only a result of your cult like approach in defending the indefensible.
This is the first time that I write and argue about sukka. Which only serves as a good indication .
It is the mashiach issue , with its sharp twists and uturns on ikarei emuna which are the real issue for our generation and which are threatening an unfixable schism in Judaism legitimizing xtianities blandishments.
It is time for all involved to let go of their bias towards habad, examine the evidence in front of them and voice their opinion without fear or favor.