The Problem of Evil combined with the problem of Free Will

[SteveII]

1. God is just and I don't know how you got that from anyone's answer. Why do you say "picking them"? In your scenario, you said Jamal rejected God because of his experiences. 
2. Why "for his own reasons" again? God could easily have created a universe without suffer. Obviously that was not his goal. Free will and the ability for people to love each other and love him seems to take precedence. 
3. There is no logical problem with the concept--let's call that the intellectual Problem of Evil (PoE) (which has largely been abandoned by professional philosophers). You objection is based on empathy/emotions or the emotional PoE. I fully agree and understand that this is one of or the biggest obstacle for an open-minded person to have when considering the God of Christianity. However, I do have a couple of points about a Christian perspective on this issue (adapted from a podcast I listened to):

a. The chief purpose of life is knowledge of God, not happiness. 
b. We are in a state of separation/rebellion against God and his purpose-spiritual evil can prevail for a time. 
c. This life is but a blip when considering eternity and God has that perspective that we often don't see/remember.
d. The knowledge of God is of immeasurable importance--and far outweighs finite suffering.

Bold mine. 
Could you kindly back up this assertion with a link or two?
I actually spent some time seeing if this statement had any basis in fact, and only come across many modern references to people STILL discussing it.  It is referenced in the "Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy", and I see conferences and meetings scheduled this very year to discuss it.  I have yet to find any claim that it has "largely been abandoned".  
There are modern philosphers even composing new arguments using the Problem of Evil, and of course, modern apologists right there to form there counter-arguments.  This hardly seems largely dismissed

I found this one on the same site you referenced: http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/#H8 

You can read the whole article, but Section 8 has some quotes and analysis. 

Rowes argument is a probabilistic argument and not making the claim that there is a logical problem. There is no logical problem. From the opening paragraph of your article:

The evidential problem of evil is the problem of determining whether and, if so, to what extent the existence of evil (or certain instances, kinds, quantities, or distributions of evil) constitutes evidence against the existence of God, that is to say, a being perfect in power, knowledge and goodness. Evidential arguments from evil attempt to show that, once we put aside any evidence there might be in support of the existence of God, it becomes unlikely, if not highly unlikely, that the world was created and is governed by an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good being. Such arguments are not to be confused with logical arguments from evil, which have the more ambitious aim of showing that, in a world in which there is evil, it is logically impossible—and not just unlikely—that God exists.

So, my points a-d apply to Rowes' argument.