My views on objective morality

[Mystic]

That's no metric for an objective morality, given that perception is itself subjective. You must interpret allegory, you must decide whether the "divine light" (whatever that is) is actually divine or simply extraordinary activity in your left parietal lobe, and whatever you mean  by "eternal light mixed with the light of time" -- which is clearly a subjective metric on its own, given the vagueness of such terminology.

I wouldn't get to caught up with the word subjective and objective. Can we know true things? I would say we can. Given that we have the light of God that stems from his own essence in us, our witnessing of the truth of morality and God and the divine link,  stems from how God witnesses himself, his absolute uniqueness, unity, and oneness. Just as God witnesses himself, so do the Angels. While you are right, we have to interpret the light to be a living reality linked to God, that it's of his glory and light that guides humanity and Angels, it doesn't mean we cannot know it to be true. This specially considering the perspective that it stems from God's own knowledge of himself, and God is the perfection of all things and glories and beauties, where he is each glory in it's ultimate, which is nothing but the absolute glory that unites all glories. We witness the truth of existence and it's nature, and our link to it, by knowledge that stems from God's knowledge of himself.
[quote pid='1214906' dateline='1456727879']

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

In other words through subjective means.

[/quote]

Depending on how you are defining subjective, it may not be problem as far as yielding knowledge. If you mean it takes individual effort and perception, then I don't see how this is necessarily problematic. 
As I stated earlier subjective and objective perceptions and morality are not anti-thesis to each other, but compliment each other. Both are true and work with one another.

That doesn't answer my question at all. How do you know that?

Additionally, I have taken the liberty of empahsizing where you are engaged in circular reasoning. 

Through the divine link itself. The divine link gives you knowledge that there is a divine link.7

No. The pertinent denotation in this context, from the OED, is:

2 Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

That is inherently a subjective state of mind. This means that if your morality is based solely on your faith, which is not shared by the majority of people the world over, your morality is itself inherently subjective.

In the Quran, faith is given context that it is seeing power and degree of submission of the heart to clear proofs of the truth of God and his Affair and guidance and Signs.

It condemns following what we have no knowledge and emphasized on following clear proofs and signs.

So as I said, perhaps, religions that lack clear proof emphasize on spiritual taste without proof, while I know in Islam, it emphasizes on clear proofs regarding religion, and not blind following.

So faith as defined in the Quran is different then the definition you provide.

So what?  Most of the world at one time believed that the Sun orbited the Earth.  Subjectively, that seems true, but objectively it is false.

Also, appealing to the beliefs of any majority is ipso facto appealing to subjectivity.  When we are talking about objective morality, we are talking about an ethical-moral system which is provable without appeal to human perceptions.  Nothing you have written here -- nothing -- does not at one point or another eschew such an appeal.

You were saying that majority was against such notion and it doesn't make sense. I was merely correcting that.