Studying the Thought of Yeshayahu Leibowitz

Well, the truth is that I was warned by someone to stay away from you and to ask that they remove an ”Epicurus who is an enemy of Israel” like you from Bar Ilan University, I called Rabbi Shlomo Aviner out of fear (why is he more qualified than you, good question…) and he told me that they are calling you an Epicurus because you do not belong to any sector and ”he really likes precision”…
So the religious coward (i.e. the hidden Epicurus in me) calmed down. There is nothing to be done. There are religious people who are afraid to deal with the fundamental questions of religion… Maybe it is worth going to psychotherapy to deal with this… ?
By the way, is this subject addressed in the rabbi's theology book?
I never understood what an "Epicurus" was, after all, Maimonides was also considered an Epicurus in his day, because he did not believe that God has a body... and today he is the greatest of believers, so who does he call an "Epicurus" and on what basis?

I don't know. It seems to me that in the accepted definition, an Epicurus is someone who thinks differently than me and I have no answer to his claims. That's why I use labels instead of addressing the matter.
I'm happy to hear Rabbi Aviner's words, and I must say that I have often enjoyed what he says because it is unexpected. He addresses things matter-of-factly and not from the gut, even if we have quite a few disagreements, I really appreciate people who address the arguments and the claimants matter-of-factly.

(If I were to mention that I heard praise from Rabbi Aviner about you, that you are a great scholar, etc.)

Roni Miron in the article “Phenomenology of a Believing Person” in the collection “On Faith” points out a certain problem with Leibowitz’s demands. On the one hand, Leibowitz demands a separation between the transcendence of God and the immanent world, on the other hand, performing a mitzvot for its own sake connects man and God. As a result, the two demands exclude each other in a way that prevents them from existing together and therefore makes Leibowitz’s method impossible (I suggest reading the article because the presentation here is superficial and not exhaustive).
I remember having such a vague understanding at an early stage in a way that caused me to distance myself from Leibowitz’s position.

By the way, Rabbi Bemuzhar does not hold Leibowitz’s position, since he holds that the mitzvot are a higher necessity, contrary to Leibowitz’s first claim.

Leibowitz himself pointed out contradictions in his theory, and said that he was not bothered by them: "The universe is full of contradictions."

This is nonsense. If he has a Mishnah full of contradictions, any conclusion can be drawn from it. In other words: it says nothing. And no, the universe is not full of contradictions.