Why logical arguments for Messengers don't work.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Let me preface by saying that in the early Christian thought, the traditional canon were not considered revealed texts (with perhaps the exception of the Apocalypse and parts of Genesis); but rather, testimonies to the revelation. God revealed Himself through historical events and his interactions with His people throughout the ages. I think this is very different from how Muslims (as I see it) revere the Koran as an actual revealed text, a direct transcription of God’s message.
If I am mistaken on this please correct me.

I will give on example. A person might see Hijaab as unfair treatment to women. However, does he have objective knowledge of the issue that he knows there can't be good and wisdom in it, that would justify the command…However, if the book taught to kill people who leave the faith for example, to me that latter perhaps can be proven objectively to be evil and that it's impossible God would command such a command.?[/quote}
God may give paradoxical and seemingly arbitrary commands that upon deeper reflection prove to be wise. Maybe the Hijaab is one such admonition. At the same time, I think you are putting people in a double bind. People must accept some teachings they believe unwise, presumably based on their own rational evaluation. Yet people must reject teachings that reason suggests are unwise, if not actually evil. If people can determine the wisdom and value of certain behavior based on reason (the same reason they use to evaluate the truth of a text) then why do they need the book in the first place.
[quote='MysticKnight' pid='1162116' dateline='1452006555']Rejecting a book simply from our ignorance to understand some laws doesn't make sense.

Acceptance and rejection are not the only options. Someone may not care to invest the time and effort to investigate it. For example, I do not fault anyone for not embracing Scholastic philosophy like I have but I feel that it is very wrong for them to disparage and condemn it without at least some understanding of it. I do not know enough about the Quran to condemn it any more than I could review a movie I never saw. Then there is the question of the degree to which it is accepted. Even in my ignorance, I can accept, based on your testimony and those of other Muslims I know, that the Quran may have much wisdom in it.

I meant by representative as one who must be obeyed in totality because he represents God's will and has proven to be such.

Where then does Jesus of Nazareth fit into this definition? Christians most certainly believe He fully conformed to the will of the Father and that for this reason must be obeyed. My guess is that you would dispute the history of Jesus’s death and resurrection.

…before someone ought to seriously study a religion, shouldn't that religion claim to have overwhelming evidence it is true?

That puts the cart before the horse. Knowledge of the truth is the result of study. If you already know something is true because of overwhelming proof why investigate? Why would you need learn about something you already know?

Given that God can write a book that is well in itself beyond human capability, can't he write it in a way that has amazing qualities and be recognized as such? [snip]… it is manifested to everyone, not only those who have the holy spirit. For example, even the Arabs of those who worshiped Jinn, etc, had their own philosophy, were in awe of the eloquence and style and speech of the Quran.

The point isn’t whether God could write the most eloquent and beautiful book ever written. He could. The first question is whether He actually has. The second question is whether the Quran is just such a book. I do not feel that awe and eloquence are sufficient to justify calling something Divine. Like many, I am awed by the music of Mozart and Bach. The beauty of their music seems beyond human capacity and yet they were just men. Maybe I would feel differently if I could read Arabic.

Also a general argument for the need of religion is not sufficient, if there isn't proof of the specific religion. That said I do agree we ought to ask God, seek God, and knock on God's door, but that should hardly be brought up in a dialogue as it makes the conversation rather heading nowhere, and comes off as preaching with no substance.

This raises the question of substance, yes? What is the nature of the content under consideration? What is the purpose of the revelation? Big questions, not enough time.