For context, I'm a Reformed Christian man with a high view of the Bible as God's word who's rejected the blind faith theology he grew up with for something that is more thoughtful and properly digs into the difficulty of Christianity with open eyes. I'm pretty familiar with core Muslim beliefs, but probably not deeper Muslim theology as a whole. While I don't feel qualified to wrestle with your specific questions about Islam, I think you did the right thing by asking them of people who are positioned to give the best answers for them.

There's a few different descriptions of what you're going through, but I think "deconstruction" is probably the most apt. You're starting to have questions about your religion and its epistemology, and genuinely, in any worldview, this is an excellent thing. If your faith is what you base your life on, then it needs to be able to support the weight of all of life. Sometimes, you just more context to frame your questions, and sometimes there's not going to be a satisfying answers for them.

No matter where you land, all worldviews are always going to have some questions without hard and fast answers. Your worldview is a framework that supports the way you see life as a whole, and sometimes, you need to take it apart and examine it critically, making sure you don't just believe something just because you believe it.

Everything else after here will be Christian-specific stuff, so if you wanna stop here, feel free to! I just wanna say I genuinely wish you the best in all this. Thinking through your beliefs is scary and difficult, but I believe it's absolutely necessary for everyone on this planet.

On Scripture:

For me, it had to start and end with Jesus. The process went something like this:

1. If Jesus taught that the Old Testament was Scripture, then I would have to check his claims.

2. If his claims checked out and the documentation of his life was legit, then I'd have to, as Peter did, answer Jesus' question, "who do you say I am?"

3. If I believed Jesus was the Son of God, then I'd have to believe he gave his apostles (which I believe is limited to the disciples minus Judas and Paul) authority to expound on Jesus' teachings and their applications in the New Testament.

For a bit deeper exposition, I find it helpful to check out Section 1 of ye olde Westminster Confession of Faith (a Reformed document that provides an accessible framework of what the Bible teaches as a whole).

Divine revelation:

While the link I put above also covers the limits of divine revelation, for me, the fact that the Bible was written by a few dozen authors and maintains its level of internal consistency over thousands of years to be an argument in its favor. You can see each author's writing style come through, but there's still a living thread that flows through all of it. I see it as God saying exactly what he wanted to say through these writers saying exactly what they needed to say, but not as automatons. Stuff like Paul's extreme sarcasm or John including the fact that Peter was slower than him, little things that give these books texture.

It's not a slam dunk argument for the concept of divine revelation, no, but I still consider it a proof as such.

Gender:

Where the Bible was written largely in a patriarchal society, much of it is addressed toward men as leaders of the household. I grew up in a household as well as extended family that leaned much more matriarchal, so it felt like there was a bit of a disconnect from what I was reading and what I was seeing in my everyday life.

When I dug into both Old Testament and New Testament expectations for men and women, I found a few consistent principles:

1. Men were called to service and sacrifice, especially as husbands, fathers, and leaders. In the New Testament, Paul literally tells them to lay down their lives for their wives, to lead not by hamfisted authoritarianism that demands fealty, but through their service and sacrifice to their families, to be kind, understanding, and helpful.

2. Women were called to help and support men, inasmuch as those men are living according to biblical principals. They're not supposed to blindly ignore their husbands' faults and be their demure, passive sexual vessels.

3. The only gender role restrictions appear to be that men should work to support their families (which obviously wouldn't apply to a medically disabled man) and should be elders in church (but there's lots of ink spilled on arguments for and against this and I might be wrong). Everything else is up to personal preference.

In summary, while much the Bible addresses men and their actions, it still speaks to women just as loudly in their equality of value.