what then is sulH kullism?

I remember an issue discussed about in the Ihya I cannot recall if its in the Ihya itself or the Sharh but the gist is as follows:
What if a corrupt king who spends his money and time on corrupt activities decides to grant monies to build a Musjid, is it allowed to accept his money?
The rulings given are as follows: That at least those monies will not be spent in corruption thus it will be deemed permissible to accept the funds but if the king is doing this to show that his rule has the acceptance of the pious and if the acceptance of the funds is seen as an endorsement of his corruption it would be impermissible to accept the funds.

In my humble opinion I feel the same would be applicable in this situation. Those in favour of sitting with deviants at a gathering or on their platforms such as radio,TV, and places of worship could present the argument that at least for those moments the people would be saved from the utterances of a deviant but the greater danger is that in the eyes of the general public this act could be seen as an endorsement of their deviance.

Albeit there has been instances in the past where righteous scholars openly and publicly rectified any incorrect utterance or mistakes made by any other speaker at a gathering.

 

So can a sunni sit with someone who is a sulla kulli on the same platform?

 

when he deems everyone to be "correct"; when he says that all are Muslims no matter whatever corrupt beliefs they hold: when he does not accept the hadeeth of the 73 sects, with only 1 going to Paradise; when he accepts the contradicting statements of Haq and Batil to be equal, even if the baatil is explicit Kufr.

A sullah kulli in fact accepts the kufriyyat of ALL the deviant sects - so is the worst of them all. imagine the kufffriyaat of all deviant sects rolled into one!!

every deviant is a faasiq;

 

jazakAllah.

so that means a sulH kulli is a hypocrite who does not to criticise others, so that THEY will not leave him or criticise him, either for:

1. worldly gain or
2. perceived benefit for the muslims.

and in both cases: it is possible that he is a staunch sunni in his heart?

Moreover, if it's for a mistaken perception of 'greater good' is he still to be condemned?

How do we judge if his perception is correct or not? He might well turn around and say that he is entitled to his opinion and he sees it as a 'practical solution' to the problems of the ummah and so he is not a sulH kulli in which case every individual who hob-nobs with deviants will get away under the pretext of "my solution to present problems". Habib 'ali or al-yaquobi for instance.

please comment.

 

continued from here.

sidi, for the general benefit of all please elaborate on this. When can a person be called as sulH kulli?

Besides, if those of the above actions which are haram by agreement of all are proved to have been committed by any scholar, then will it not make him a fasiq at the very least?