What is the fallacy when someone refuses to be specific

Question

A Muslim apologist was debating two Atheists on DW channel in Arabic, the host asked him whether he agrees with "executing atheist apostates".

The Muslim apologist knows that apostates are to be executed, according to his religious belief, but he also knows that answering "yes" would put him at a disadvantage.

So, his answer was something like : "The Atheist should be stopped if he starts preaching atheism".

The host asked him to be specific, what does he mean by "stopped", but the Muslim apologist responded without even mentioning the words "kill" or "execute".. he just used words like : "punish" , "stop", "the atheist is a treat to our society"...etc.

And the host said that he did not answer his question.

At first, I thought this fallacy is a Red Herring , but it seems like some kind of appeal to ambiguity.

Is there a name for this fallacy?

Edit

A friend suggested Ignoratio Elenchi, but I think it can be considered another name for the Red Herring, or at least a form of it.

Answer 1

This answer will attempt to identify possible fallacies or false fallacies that might be applied to either the Muslim apologist or the atheists although the OP is mainly interested in identifying a fallacy committed by the Muslim.

Bo Bennett's description of "Weasel Wording" may fit the description of what the Muslim apologist is attempting to do in the argument:

Weasel Wording: Using ambiguous words in order to mislead or conceal a truth: “Save up to 50% or more!” This is more of a marketing gimmick than a fallacy.

However, Bennett also labels this as a "pseudo-logical fallacy", that is, an argumentation pattern that has been identified as fallacious by some, but is not fallacious according to Bennett's three criteria:

1. It must be an error in reasoning, not a factual error.
2. It must be commonly applied to an argument either in the form of the argument or the interpretation of the argument.
3. It must be deceptive in that it often fools the average adult.

Bennett also describes a pseudo-logical fallacy that might apply to the atheists countering the Muslim apologist:

Argument by Rhetorical Question: Setting up questions in such a way to get the answers you want. This is a name for an argumentation strategy covered by both the loaded question and leading question fallacies.

This illustrates that both sides in this argument could accuse the other of being fallacious if the context is appropriate.

Simply questioning whether the other side has committed a logical fallacy may be an example of the Complex Question Fallacy, which Bennet considers to be a legitimate fallacy:

A question that has a presupposition built in, which implies something but protects the one asking the question from accusations of false claims. It is a form of misleading discourse, and it is a fallacy when the audience does not detect the assumed information implicit in the question and accepts it as a fact.

Bennett gives the following illustrations of these kinds of these questions with built-in presuppositions:

• How many times per day do you beat your wife?
• How many school shootings should we tolerate before we change the gun laws?

Just asking questions such as these may involve deception by prejudicing the audience against the opposing side.

Contrast these with questions seeking factual information which would not be logically fallacious, such as, "How long can one survive without water?"

One should be careful when questioning and perhaps accept whatever the opponent offers as an answer. Later questioning might make evident a contradiction with an earlier answer.

---

Bennett, B. "Complex Question Fallacy" Logically Fallacious https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/69/Complex-Question-Fallacy

Bennett, B. "Pseudo-Logical Fallacies" Logically Fallacious https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/6/Pseudo-Logical-Fallacies

Answer 2

You are talking about Evasion, which is an act that deceives by stating a true statement that is irrelevant or leads to a false conclusion.

Now we may wonder: is avoiding the question a logical fallacy ?

Well, yes, it is an informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but whose result fails to address the question.

The Latin name for this fallacy is ignoratio elenchi.