Anonymous1 wrote:

Your understanding and reading are totally lacking - no wonder the discussions get nowhere - Imam Ali once remarked I can convince the most knowledgable of people, but I cannot convince the ignorant! You have regularly proven you ignorance

What a horribly rude thing to say.

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

I raised the question then which you avoided, and I raise it again - prove all the regions you showed had different Caliphates! Lots of Caliphates is a lie - Salahadin removed teh Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt and was loyal to the Abassid Caliphate in Baghdad - thus Egypt was never a separate Caliphate.

If you looked at the picture, Egypt was not shown as a separate caliphate:

If you read my point, I had said your picture does not show multiple Caliphates - are you suggesting there were 10+ caliphates here? I will be most surprised if you do and will provide a refutation once you confirm.

If not, what exactly are you suggesting by this picture?

You wrote:

you did not refust the argument of the linked to ews article (which was but a single attempt to measure such things).

Refutation was provided - reproduced below - please refute point by point:

You wrote:

Now you're trying to hide there. Personal attacks instead of providing historical evidence for your views being accepted by Muslims (while I have shown that Muslims had stronger views than that.)

Firstly, most of the scholars you provided did not argue what you are arguing - please provide accurate citations rather than your interpretations of what scholars may understand about our topic when they discuss a topic close to ours.
Secondly, even if I provide classical scholars that argue that morality is not inate, you will never believe the point. Just like classical scholars looked at and threw democracy in the bin and went with the Caliphate system without elections but with the all important baya - but you still don't accept that - and that's not my interpretation - that is what the scholars said and practiced.
You wrote:

your first paragraph is a slut that I am not orthodox or follow classical scholars. you are free to make as many slurs and insinuations as you like, but this is unrelated to here. The next sentence is that I reject the caliphate. I would disagree and say I only reject your understanding of the caliphates and their history - but this is unrelated to the issue of fitrah. an attempt to obscure the issue?

This is not a slur - it is a fact. I have discussed a number of points with you - the solution to when Muslim land is occupied is another example - the classical scholars would say the solution is Jihad - you however argue it will lead to loss of life and reject it! The classical scholars put forward the Caliphate form of government - you argue against it and no, you do not argue against my understanding, you are arguing against the scholars' conception of it. You argue to bring democracy into Islam, you argue we can dump religious socio-political bonds and replaced them with secular nationalistic ones - bring me one classical scholar that argued you can do this?
You wrote:

The next paragraph had a auestion which was why only 8/10 and not 10 out of 10. It is all about statistics and you can control some of the parameters of observation and not all. Maybe the other two were busy doing something else, like sucking their thumb?

Great answer - sucking their thumbs! It undermines your whole premise of innate morality as 20% did not exhibit it!
You wrote:

The general point though is one of statistics which points towards even babies having a moral compass. Not my view but the view of the researchers.

Stats works on the basis of analysing for statistically significant events through distributions - the results are probabilistic of the variables being considered and indicate the degree of potential correlation - if you have been unable to exclude social conditioning the correlation that is visible is disputable as the social conditioning could be the correlating factor - something you have totally missed and ignored.
You wrote:

On the Ashari view vs teh ma'turidi views on aqeedah, the ashari view does not reject reason (just like the ma'turidi view did not reject tradition). It only goes to there if you decide to turn it into a caricature.

What are you on about??? What relevance does this have?
The Asharites argued that morality is not determinable through reason but through revelation - if it is innate, then what is the point of revelation? The point is that it is not! I have yet to see anyone (Muslim and non-Muslim) who believes innate morality explain how lieing can be agreed upon by all as morally wrong however all will not agree to the moral goodness of lieing to one's wife - whilst Islam mandates it as morally correct. Likewise, Jews were told it is morally offensive to have filthy clothes and the offending garment morally must be cut - Muslims are told it morally must be washed - which is innate? Neither!

You wrote:

You have also refused to show that your view has any validityu according to Muslim scholars, even though you listed Al Ghazali as having that view.

Fabrication - Ghazali and his book was referenced. You appear to be unaware that it is not a Muslim issue - it is an issue of reality. You don't need Muslim, hindu or secular views on it as those only provide ideological perspectives - reality is reality to all humans! Children either have INBORN MORALITY or they do not. Inborn instincts exist which noone disputes - calling them morals is wrong - citing classical scholars who argue propensities do not support your argument but mine as I already accept internal instincts. You need to provide proof of internal morality - not dispositions which is another label for instincts.

You wrote:

Those are the empires that where there at that time and not mere governerships that simply formed a larger caliphate. Many of them also called themselves caliphates too.

(We are also discussing a point in Muslim history whre there was already greater unity then in the years before and then in the years after.)

(The Byzantines and the crusaders atleast were not Muslims, so it is not just Muslim empires on there, though the majority are.)

The Ayyubids were at war (rather, had wars but were unable to conquer) with the Al Mohads and also whichever one was in charge of part of Mesopotamia (Zengids of Mosul). These are the two that you will need to refute. and show that "no, they were all a part of the same empire" (but even this is before the later stuff where for three centuries there was even less concentration of power).

There would also be governors, but they would be smaller and within the specific empires.

Define Empire and define Governorship.

Which of these "Empires" called themselves Caliphates?

You wrote:

you did not refust the argument of the linked to ews article (which was but a single attempt to measure such things).

Refutation was provided - reproduced below - please refute point by point:

You wrote:

Now you're trying to hide there. Personal attacks instead of providing historical evidence for your views being accepted by Muslims (while I have shown that Muslims had stronger views than that.)

Firstly, most of the scholars you provided did not argue what you are arguing - please provide accurate citations rather than your interpretations of what scholars may understand about our topic when they discuss a topic close to ours.
Secondly, even if I provide classical scholars that argue that morality is not inate, you will never believe the point. Just like classical scholars looked at and threw democracy in the bin and went with the Caliphate system without elections but with the all important baya - but you still don't accept that - and that's not my interpretation - that is what the scholars said and practiced.
You wrote:

your first paragraph is a slut that I am not orthodox or follow classical scholars. you are free to make as many slurs and insinuations as you like, but this is unrelated to here. The next sentence is that I reject the caliphate. I would disagree and say I only reject your understanding of the caliphates and their history - but this is unrelated to the issue of fitrah. an attempt to obscure the issue?

This is not a slur - it is a fact. I have discussed a number of points with you - the solution to when Muslim land is occupied is another example - the classical scholars would say the solution is Jihad - you however argue it will lead to loss of life and reject it! The classical scholars put forward the Caliphate form of government - you argue against it and no, you do not argue against my understanding, you are arguing against the scholars' conception of it. You argue to bring democracy into Islam, you argue we can dump religious socio-political bonds and replaced them with secular nationalistic ones - bring me one classical scholar that argued you can do this?
You wrote:

The next paragraph had a auestion which was why only 8/10 and not 10 out of 10. It is all about statistics and you can control some of the parameters of observation and not all. Maybe the other two were busy doing something else, like sucking their thumb?

Great answer - sucking their thumbs! It undermines your whole premise of innate morality as 20% did not exhibit it!
You wrote:

The general point though is one of statistics which points towards even babies having a moral compass. Not my view but the view of the researchers.

Stats works on the basis of analysing for statistically significant events through distributions - the results are probabilistic of the variables being considered and indicate the degree of potential correlation - if you have been unable to exclude social conditioning the correlation that is visible is disputable as the social conditioning could be the correlating factor - something you have totally missed and ignored.
You wrote:

On the Ashari view vs teh ma'turidi views on aqeedah, the ashari view does not reject reason (just like the ma'turidi view did not reject tradition). It only goes to there if you decide to turn it into a caricature.

What are you on about??? What relevance does this have?
The Asharites argued that morality is not determinable through reason but through revelation - if it is innate, then what is the point of revelation? The point is that it is not! I have yet to see anyone (Muslim and non-Muslim) who believes innate morality explain how lieing can be agreed upon by all as morally wrong however all will not agree to the moral goodness of lieing to one's wife - whilst Islam mandates it as morally correct. Likewise, Jews were told it is morally offensive to have filthy clothes and the offending garment morally must be cut - Muslims are told it morally must be washed - which is innate? Neither!

You wrote:

You have also refused to show that your view has any validityu according to Muslim scholars, even though you listed Al Ghazali as having that view.

Fabrication - Ghazali and his book was referenced. You appear to be unaware that it is not a Muslim issue - it is an issue of reality. You don't need Muslim, hindu or secular views on it as those only provide ideological perspectives - reality is reality to all humans! Children either have INBORN MORALITY or they do not. Inborn instincts exist which noone disputes - calling them morals is wrong - citing classical scholars who argue propensities do not support your argument but mine as I already accept internal instincts. You need to provide proof of internal morality - not dispositions which is another label for instincts.

You wrote:

you did not refust the argument of the linked to ews article (which was but a single attempt to measure such things).

Refutation was provided - reproduced below - please refute point by point:

You wrote:

Now you're trying to hide there. Personal attacks instead of providing historical evidence for your views being accepted by Muslims (while I have shown that Muslims had stronger views than that.)

Firstly, most of the scholars you provided did not argue what you are arguing - please provide accurate citations rather than your interpretations of what scholars may understand about our topic when they discuss a topic close to ours.
Secondly, even if I provide classical scholars that argue that morality is not inate, you will never believe the point. Just like classical scholars looked at and threw democracy in the bin and went with the Caliphate system without elections but with the all important baya - but you still don't accept that - and that's not my interpretation - that is what the scholars said and practiced.
You wrote:

your first paragraph is a slut that I am not orthodox or follow classical scholars. you are free to make as many slurs and insinuations as you like, but this is unrelated to here. The next sentence is that I reject the caliphate. I would disagree and say I only reject your understanding of the caliphates and their history - but this is unrelated to the issue of fitrah. an attempt to obscure the issue?

This is not a slur - it is a fact. I have discussed a number of points with you - the solution to when Muslim land is occupied is another example - the classical scholars would say the solution is Jihad - you however argue it will lead to loss of life and reject it! The classical scholars put forward the Caliphate form of government - you argue against it and no, you do not argue against my understanding, you are arguing against the scholars' conception of it. You argue to bring democracy into Islam, you argue we can dump religious socio-political bonds and replaced them with secular nationalistic ones - bring me one classical scholar that argued you can do this?
You wrote:

The next paragraph had a auestion which was why only 8/10 and not 10 out of 10. It is all about statistics and you can control some of the parameters of observation and not all. Maybe the other two were busy doing something else, like sucking their thumb?

Great answer - sucking their thumbs! It undermines your whole premise of innate morality as 20% did not exhibit it!
You wrote:

The general point though is one of statistics which points towards even babies having a moral compass. Not my view but the view of the researchers.

Stats works on the basis of analysing for statistically significant events through distributions - the results are probabilistic of the variables being considered and indicate the degree of potential correlation - if you have been unable to exclude social conditioning the correlation that is visible is disputable as the social conditioning could be the correlating factor - something you have totally missed and ignored.
You wrote:

On the Ashari view vs teh ma'turidi views on aqeedah, the ashari view does not reject reason (just like the ma'turidi view did not reject tradition). It only goes to there if you decide to turn it into a caricature.

What are you on about??? What relevance does this have?
The Asharites argued that morality is not determinable through reason but through revelation - if it is innate, then what is the point of revelation? The point is that it is not! I have yet to see anyone (Muslim and non-Muslim) who believes innate morality explain how lieing can be agreed upon by all as morally wrong however all will not agree to the moral goodness of lieing to one's wife - whilst Islam mandates it as morally correct. Likewise, Jews were told it is morally offensive to have filthy clothes and the offending garment morally must be cut - Muslims are told it morally must be washed - which is innate? Neither!

You wrote:

You have also refused to show that your view has any validityu according to Muslim scholars, even though you listed Al Ghazali as having that view.

Fabrication - Ghazali and his book was referenced. You appear to be unaware that it is not a Muslim issue - it is an issue of reality. You don't need Muslim, hindu or secular views on it as those only provide ideological perspectives - reality is reality to all humans! Children either have INBORN MORALITY or they do not. Inborn instincts exist which noone disputes - calling them morals is wrong - citing classical scholars who argue propensities do not support your argument but mine as I already accept internal instincts. You need to provide proof of internal morality - not dispositions which is another label for instincts.

You wrote:

you did not refust the argument of the linked to ews article (which was but a single attempt to measure such things).

Refutation was provided - reproduced below - please refute point by point:

You wrote:

Now you're trying to hide there. Personal attacks instead of providing historical evidence for your views being accepted by Muslims (while I have shown that Muslims had stronger views than that.)

Firstly, most of the scholars you provided did not argue what you are arguing - please provide accurate citations rather than your interpretations of what scholars may understand about our topic when they discuss a topic close to ours.
Secondly, even if I provide classical scholars that argue that morality is not inate, you will never believe the point. Just like classical scholars looked at and threw democracy in the bin and went with the Caliphate system without elections but with the all important baya - but you still don't accept that - and that's not my interpretation - that is what the scholars said and practiced.
You wrote:

your first paragraph is a slut that I am not orthodox or follow classical scholars. you are free to make as many slurs and insinuations as you like, but this is unrelated to here. The next sentence is that I reject the caliphate. I would disagree and say I only reject your understanding of the caliphates and their history - but this is unrelated to the issue of fitrah. an attempt to obscure the issue?

This is not a slur - it is a fact. I have discussed a number of points with you - the solution to when Muslim land is occupied is another example - the classical scholars would say the solution is Jihad - you however argue it will lead to loss of life and reject it! The classical scholars put forward the Caliphate form of government - you argue against it and no, you do not argue against my understanding, you are arguing against the scholars' conception of it. You argue to bring democracy into Islam, you argue we can dump religious socio-political bonds and replaced them with secular nationalistic ones - bring me one classical scholar that argued you can do this?
You wrote:

The next paragraph had a auestion which was why only 8/10 and not 10 out of 10. It is all about statistics and you can control some of the parameters of observation and not all. Maybe the other two were busy doing something else, like sucking their thumb?

Great answer - sucking their thumbs! It undermines your whole premise of innate morality as 20% did not exhibit it!
You wrote:

The general point though is one of statistics which points towards even babies having a moral compass. Not my view but the view of the researchers.

Stats works on the basis of analysing for statistically significant events through distributions - the results are probabilistic of the variables being considered and indicate the degree of potential correlation - if you have been unable to exclude social conditioning the correlation that is visible is disputable as the social conditioning could be the correlating factor - something you have totally missed and ignored.
You wrote:

On the Ashari view vs teh ma'turidi views on aqeedah, the ashari view does not reject reason (just like the ma'turidi view did not reject tradition). It only goes to there if you decide to turn it into a caricature.

What are you on about??? What relevance does this have?
The Asharites argued that morality is not determinable through reason but through revelation - if it is innate, then what is the point of revelation? The point is that it is not! I have yet to see anyone (Muslim and non-Muslim) who believes innate morality explain how lieing can be agreed upon by all as morally wrong however all will not agree to the moral goodness of lieing to one's wife - whilst Islam mandates it as morally correct. Likewise, Jews were told it is morally offensive to have filthy clothes and the offending garment morally must be cut - Muslims are told it morally must be washed - which is innate? Neither!

You wrote:

You have also refused to show that your view has any validityu according to Muslim scholars, even though you listed Al Ghazali as having that view.

Fabrication - Ghazali and his book was referenced. You appear to be unaware that it is not a Muslim issue - it is an issue of reality. You don't need Muslim, hindu or secular views on it as those only provide ideological perspectives - reality is reality to all humans! Children either have INBORN MORALITY or they do not. Inborn instincts exist which noone disputes - calling them morals is wrong - citing classical scholars who argue propensities do not support your argument but mine as I already accept internal instincts. You need to provide proof of internal morality - not dispositions which is another label for instincts.

You wrote:

om, you win. I cba to read all that. I concede. Youa re right, I am wrong.

Now can I see the reference to Al Ghazali's view on fitrah? If it was referenced before and I merely missed it, please quote.

While posting this, I just noticed the following in one of yor posts:

On the Ashari view vs teh ma'turidi views on aqeedah, the ashari view does not reject reason (just like the ma'turidi view did not reject tradition). It only goes to there if you decide to turn it into a caricature.

What are you on about??? What relevance does this have?
The Asharites argued that morality is not determinable through reason but through revelation - if it is innate, then what is the point of revelation?

Because you cannot (as I had edited the post before to explain) know that you need to pray 5 times a day. You cannot know how to correctly do wudu. you cannot know to do many things without revelation.

But at the same time there are many other things which you can and the ashari view does not reject that.

The Asharites argued that all matters are known through revelation (read Nuh Keller's summary of their position in Reliance of the Traveller - as you don't know Arabic it is in English) - one cannot know lieing is wrong but lieing to your wife is right? Visiting graves is wrong but a little later it is good? Having connected contracts are wrong? Pledging an oath to a Caliph is right and using elections to achieve the same is wrong? Obedience to a Caliph is right even if he oppresses you and takes your money? etc

You wrote:

I am still waiting for your reference on Imam Ghazalis view on the fitrah... (he divided the nafs into four segments etc, but that is different.)

Maybe you should read the posts I post rather than letting your eye catch bits and pieces.

I'll make it easy for you:

Man is born as a tabula rasa, and children acquire personality, characteristics and behaviour through living in society and interacting with the environment. The family teaches the children its language, customs and religious traditions, whose influence they cannot escape. Therefore, the main responsibility for children's education falls on the parents, who take credit for their probity and bear the burden of their errors; they are partners in everything the children do, and this responsibility is subsequently shared by the teachers (Ihya' ‘Ulum ad-Din, vol. 1, p. 46 and vol. 4, p. 83; Al-Iqtisad fi-l-I‘tiqad, p. 118-19; Mizan al-‘Amal, p. 98.)

Awareness and knowledge are the most important characteristics of man, who derives knowledge from two sources: the human attributes of the senses and reason, which are deficient, allow man to know the material world in which he lives; while the divine properties of revelation and inspiration enable him to discover the invisible world. These two types of knowledge must not be equated, whether with respect to their source, method or reliability. True knowledge can only be unveiled once the self has been cultivated through learning and exercise for what is engraved on the Well-Guarded Tablet (the contents of the Holy Koran) to be imprinted on it. The more the self comprehends such knowledge, the better it knows God, the closer it comes to Him, and the greater is the happiness of man (Al-Mustasfà fi ‘Ilm al-Usul, vol. 1, p. 111 et. seq.; Al-Iqtisad fi-l-I‘tiqad, p. 118 et seq.)

I'll make it easy for you:

Man is born as a tabula rasa, and children acquire personality, characteristics and behaviour through living in society and interacting with the environment. The family teaches the children its language, customs and religious traditions, whose influence they cannot escape. Therefore, the main responsibility for children's education falls on the parents, who take credit for their probity and bear the burden of their errors; they are partners in everything the children do, and this responsibility is subsequently shared by the teachers (Ihya' ‘Ulum ad-Din, vol. 1, p. 46 and vol. 4, p. 83; Al-Iqtisad fi-l-I‘tiqad, p. 118-19; Mizan al-‘Amal, p. 98.)

Awareness and knowledge are the most important characteristics of man, who derives knowledge from two sources: the human attributes of the senses and reason, which are deficient, allow man to know the material world in which he lives; while the divine properties of revelation and inspiration enable him to discover the invisible world. These two types of knowledge must not be equated, whether with respect to their source, method or reliability. True knowledge can only be unveiled once the self has been cultivated through learning and exercise for what is engraved on the Well-Guarded Tablet (the contents of the Holy Koran) to be imprinted on it. The more the self comprehends such knowledge, the better it knows God, the closer it comes to Him, and the greater is the happiness of man (Al-Mustasfà fi ‘Ilm al-Usul, vol. 1, p. 111 et. seq.; Al-Iqtisad fi-l-I‘tiqad, p. 118 et seq.)

I'll make it easy for you:

Man is born as a tabula rasa, and children acquire personality, characteristics and behaviour through living in society and interacting with the environment. The family teaches the children its language, customs and religious traditions, whose influence they cannot escape. Therefore, the main responsibility for children's education falls on the parents, who take credit for their probity and bear the burden of their errors; they are partners in everything the children do, and this responsibility is subsequently shared by the teachers (Ihya' ‘Ulum ad-Din, vol. 1, p. 46 and vol. 4, p. 83; Al-Iqtisad fi-l-I‘tiqad, p. 118-19; Mizan al-‘Amal, p. 98.)

Awareness and knowledge are the most important characteristics of man, who derives knowledge from two sources: the human attributes of the senses and reason, which are deficient, allow man to know the material world in which he lives; while the divine properties of revelation and inspiration enable him to discover the invisible world. These two types of knowledge must not be equated, whether with respect to their source, method or reliability. True knowledge can only be unveiled once the self has been cultivated through learning and exercise for what is engraved on the Well-Guarded Tablet (the contents of the Holy Koran) to be imprinted on it. The more the self comprehends such knowledge, the better it knows God, the closer it comes to Him, and the greater is the happiness of man (Al-Mustasfà fi ‘Ilm al-Usul, vol. 1, p. 111 et. seq.; Al-Iqtisad fi-l-I‘tiqad, p. 118 et seq.)

You wrote:

Thankyou.

Neither of those deny that we have a built in predesposition towards good.

The first paragraph talks about knowledge and this is different from wether there is an inbuilt ability to separate between right and wrong.

TABULA RASA - it means blank slate! NO concepts - Morality requires some concepts. Otherwise you are simply describing instincts which is what I have been saying all along - you are simply confusing instinctive drives and behavior with morality - the two are different.

Anonymous1 wrote:

You wrote:

Those are the empires that where there at that time and not mere governerships that simply formed a larger caliphate. Many of them also called themselves caliphates too.

(We are also discussing a point in Muslim history whre there was already greater unity then in the years before and then in the years after.)

(The Byzantines and the crusaders atleast were not Muslims, so it is not just Muslim empires on there, though the majority are.)

The Ayyubids were at war (rather, had wars but were unable to conquer) with the Al Mohads and also whichever one was in charge of part of Mesopotamia (Zengids of Mosul). These are the two that you will need to refute. and show that "no, they were all a part of the same empire" (but even this is before the later stuff where for three centuries there was even less concentration of power).

There would also be governors, but they would be smaller and within the specific empires.

Define Empire and define Governorship.

Which of these "Empires" called themselves Caliphates?

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

You wrote:

Thankyou.

Neither of those deny that we have a built in predesposition towards good.

The first paragraph talks about knowledge and this is different from wether there is an inbuilt ability to separate between right and wrong.

TABULA RASA - it means blank slate! NO concepts - Morality requires some concepts. Otherwise you are simply describing instincts which is what I have been saying all along - you are simply confusing instinctive drives and behavior with morality - the two are different.

The subject matter of the "proofs" was about knowlege and not instinct. If you take them to the absolute limit, the newborn baby should not know how to breathe, but should require an intensive academic course in the subject of breathing, and be granted a diploma before it is allowed to breathe. Instead what you get is someone tap the baby on the back and the baby starts to breathe is that is meant to be.

So you are using texts about knowledge and conflating them with instinct in order to deny the existence and impact of the latter.

Children are born with instincts, survival, species, sanctification etc. Thus a sexual drive requires satisfying - it indicates no morality in terms of having sex in the street for its satisfaction or through a marriage contract - it just needs satisfying. Which of the approaches is taken requires a mental process to decide which requires a moral criteria.

Children are not born with any concepts about morality. To decide which action is right and which action is wrong requires concepts.

Concepts are a subset of knowledge - if the mind is blank of knowledge, it is also blank in terms of moral concepts.

Anonymous1 wrote:

MakeMeRawr_7TeenF wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

epistemology

Did/do you study Philosophy at A-Level/Degree?

Nope - it was Masters.

So what did that involve?

Did you enjoy it?

You wrote:

How do people recognise the truth then? How do people recognise that Islam is the right way, that the qur'an is the word of God if there is nothing there to push them in that direction?

People know truth through correlating assertions with reality and reason - if they match, they are correct, if they do not they are not.

Quran is known to be correct through reason - the divine miracle embedded in the Quran is not producable by humans thus is divine.

We don't follow some innate feeling but reason when embracing Islam. Multitudes of verses confirm this approach too asking us to contemplate the universe around us, natural processes and life - all which would lead a thinking person to one necessary conclusion.

You wrote:

The divine miracle as in not being able to produce the words in arabic as such do not apply to us since we do not know arabic and thus we have to take others' words that it cannot be done.

The divine miracle does apply to us as it is mutlaq. One does not need Arabic to understand the argument that no human can reproduce prose Mohammed(saw) brought just as one did not need to be a doctor to understand that no human could reproduce the miracle of giving life to clay or bringing a corpse back to life. One can rely on a large number of experts or experienced people to gain certainty that the prose is way beyond the best of Arabic literature.

You wrote:

Yes, verses do ask us to contemplate and reason... things that we have been given and are part of fitrah?

No nothing to do with fitrah - it asks us to use our minds and reason - a separate entity and process from that of fitrah.

You wrote:

Recognising reason... using it... that cannot be done in a world where everything is nurture.

What are you on about!

You wrote:

you are saying that people use faculties that cannot distinguish between right and wrong to distinguish between right and wrong. That idea seems to be paradoxical to me.

No that is your weird understanding. One uses the mind and reason to determine the truth (haqq) - a different concept from moral terms such as right/wrong (halal/haram).

You wrote:

(weren't you also arguing just a bit ago that the qur'an was not objective but subjective? is anon1 a single person or multiple people pretending to be one?)

Many verses of Quran are subjective - many are not. Maybe you should try reading the Quran occassionally and get away from this forum!