Egyptian Hasidim and Muslim Influence

I will admit the truth and not be ashamed, I am deeply shocked by the lightness with which the Rabbi treats the adoption of foreign practices, I asked the Rabbi about this in the past, but the answer did not satisfy me.
I would like to receive a systematic explanation regarding the Rabbi's perception of the adoption of foreign practices.
It is also important to note for the sake of intellectual integrity, that it is simple and clear that our ancestors did not engage in what is called today the "work of the Creator", but only observed practical commandments, any attempt to present the "work of the Creator", in any way, as an ancient practice is a historical distortion that ridicules our ancestors and us.

Always acknowledge the truth and not be ashamed, as it is said: And not be ashamed because of the mockers.
The burden of proof is on those who claim that things should not be drawn from the outside. Everything that is not forbidden is permitted.
Regarding the question of whether our ancestors were engaged in the work of the Creator, I am very impressed by your determination, but I really disagree.

I will formulate my argument in a different way, what value is there in a practice that we are not commanded to carry out, even if a permitted practice does not make it religious or have any content, it is simply an empty act and nothing more.
Regarding the “work of the Creator” the Rabbi can of course disagree, but I would ask him to provide evidence that our ancestors engaged in ”work of the Creator” apart from fulfilling the commandments.
Thank you, Benjamin

There are quite a few things we do without a command. For example, not being a villain in the presence of the Torah, or moral behavior, the work of virtues, being a voter and other human values. Rabbi Shekap even claims that there are binding legal instructions without a command (Torah of Law). The question is really strange to me.

I feel that the rabbi is going around in circles and trying to evade. Of course, there are things we do without a command. There is no dispute about that. Normal human behavior, called by Wiesel the "law of man," does not become Torah and a mitzvah. These are simple things that everyone who is called a human shares in. The "law of man" does not become a religious act. It is simply an elementary human act. Rabbi Shekapp's claim makes the legal instruction binding but not a religious act. The source of the obligation is in the legal consequences of the act, which certainly has halachic implications. This is completely legitimate.
It amazes me why the Rabbi treats my simple question as ”strange”, there is no strangeness here, the question is simple, how does an act become religious if it is not a commandment, I claim that there is no such reality because I have not found evidence for the opposite claim, as much as the Rabbi claims that a practice without a commandment can be considered a religious practice, with all due respect, the evidence is on him.
I really do not see “the work of the Creator” in normal human behavior. The answer to Judah should have been very simple, apart from a commandment there is no “the work of the Creator”, it is all a delusional collection of imagined inventions from the feverish minds of the cult of delusional Israelites.
I would really like to see evidence for the Rabbi's words.

I will answer one last time and end with this (unless something new comes up).
Everything I do is done by the power of God Almighty. There are no norms that are binding without Him. The same applies to moral or human behavior, etc. See the fourth notebook. Therefore, every such act has religious value. My assumption is that God Almighty is the moral legislator and He expects us to act in this way. I do not accept the possibility of values in a world without God. Therefore, every ethical act is religious. It is true that for a secular person who acts morally (who is of course not a consistent person), his actions do not have religious value because religious consciousness is required to give the act such value. But for a religious person, every ethical act that is done from the recognition that God Almighty expects this of me (and if He actually commands me to do so) is an act of religious value.
And do you think that whoever transgresses the jurisprudence of Rabbi Shekap has no claim against God? Of course he does. Why did I call him a Sabra?! Just one thing: Halachic Sabra means a norm without a command (I am talking about substantive Sabra, not interpretive. See my article on the status of Sabra, here on the site).
It is really simple in my opinion, and I do not understand what the difficulty is and what the discussion is about.