How to beat a presupp at their own game

[The Grand Nudger]

Magic book says alot of things, and when the god in magic book says unjust things and promises unjust things, 

That's irrelevant to our discussion. The word unjust as you use it here is your own moral assessment of the Qur'an's assertions, which doesn't have any bearing on how the Qur'an describes God.
To make matters simpler: let's say that some religion A presents the God A as a "perfectly just deity which will condemn all its creatures to eternal hellfire". 
Now my rule doesn't apply to religion A, even if the actions of the deity strongly provoke our inner moral sense. 

On a side note, a well-known authentic hadith actually declares that no one, including the prophet, will go to heaven if God decides to be maximally just with his creatures:

quote: "I heard Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) saying, "The good deeds of any person will not make him enter Paradise." (i.e., None can enter Paradise through his good deeds.) They (the Prophet's companions) said, 'Not even you, O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)?' He said, "Not even myself, unless Allah bestows His favor and mercy on me."

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5673

You read that right: infinite justness minutiously applied means that everyone goes to hell, prophets of god included. 

..and I know that you didn't rule any religions on on account of that non-rule to begin with - so it all seems so pointless.  But..go ahead, double down.

Yes, you're right. I didn't rule out christianity for example based on this rule. But you're forgetting something here, is it necessary to look for other religions when you are presented with very compelling evidence for a particular religion? Obviously not. We have to pursue some direction, after all. We can at least rest assured that no just deity will punish us for choosing the wrong belief despite our best efforts.

You imagine and conceive of your non rule as an invalid premise which you will not affirm when that premise is applied to your own religion.

I explain the logical consequences of your invalid non-rule if we attempted to apply it cogently.

You now tell me that magic book tells you to be unconcerned with being maximally just.  The verse doesn't actually say that, but if that's what you believe it's as good as any other.  Am I supposed to be surprised that you've interpreted magic book to provide you an excuse for injustice even as you insist that unjust religions can be ruled out? I'm not worried about whether or not your silly god or your disgusting religion meets the criteria for maximal justness - I'm telling you it fails to meet the bar of minimal justness.

Sure, we all pursue some direction - but some directions are..very clearly, garbage. Yours is just such a diretion. If we were being generous to allah, you're the fuckup, and what you say here is garbage....but, ofc, you'll defend your own honor to the detriment of your silly god's. Other posters are more generous. I don't respect you -or- your beliefs. You've given me no reason to, and have given me every reason to consider both irredeemably broken. Is that a problem for any goal of yours here? Is that the intended effect?

You can argue moral subjectivism as an excuse for moral depravity with a moral subjectivist - but with me, you may as well pound sand. You'd make less of a fool of yourself punching a mound of dirt than reading your own god and your own religion for unapologetic filth, to me. You wondered aloud why you should argue over morality with a person who doesn't respect you - there are plenty of reasons for that - but there is truly no reason whatsoever to argue morality with a person who insists that they have no moral agency and no moral system to apply that agency to if they could muster it up.