Muslims aren't the problem, Islam is

No. but if you have to make up your own definitions of word to prove your point then knock yourself out

Just don't expect to be taken very seriously.

And with that I'll end this line of discussion.

Indeed. But the 'white' man has been made to feel guilty for his history.

What sense is to believe in script, but not follow its clear instructions?

You need a better dictionary
disbelieverˌdɪsbɪˈliːvə(r)/nounnoun: disbeliever; plural noun: disbelievers

PRSOM, despite his confirmation bias and obfuscation tactics, this has destroyed his argument and well and truly put it to bed. I was going to post the Oxford dictionary definition, but as you and QE2 have already done it there's no point in me doing it also.

I have managed to differentiate, quite successfully, between a non-believer, believer, disbeliever and unbeliever .

Religious script is wide open for interpretation. Hence why the religion itself is not blameless.

No matter how many people correct him he still won't see how he's been wrong from the start of this 'episode'

But to save my sanity I've put him on ignore so his pedantry and in this case 'made up word defanitions' can no longer distract from the topic at hand

Not in every religion. You are definitely right regarding christianity, because there are no strict rules in New Testament. But Islam and Judaism are different. There are several denominations in Islam, but no muslim will eat pork. There are several denominations in Judaism, but no one of them will break the Sabbath.

Very good idea. I put him on my ignore list a few weeks ago, and it makes visiting TSR a vastly more pleasant experience. I have no idea why a notorious troll who's been banned from TSR countless dozens of times is allowed to keep posting, anyway.

Same, he's on my ignore. Although I'm not actually sure if he's tsr1269 you know. The latter's posts were a lot ruder and aggressive. He has also said Islam is cancerous, something I can't imagine footstool asserting!

well, (to my knowledge) no Christian will deny the existence of God

well, undoubtedly a believer and a non-believer are not exactly one and the same thing

as to the two other categories, they are simply synonyms of non-believers

the Quran does not use those concepts : in the Quran, believers are the "moomin" (actually, the "true" believers) or the "muslims" (those who submit) or, for pre-islamic monotheists, the "hunafa"

there is no specific word for the other categories: you have the "kuffar" (those who know the truth and deny it), "the ahl ul-kitab" (people of the book : Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Sabeans), the "mushrikun" (those who associate other divinities with Allah), the "munafiqun" (hypocrites, who pretend to believe, but actually don't), and then many other definitions which are related, but do not cover the same concept - fasiq (corrupted), zalimun (oppressors - but also many other things : see here http://skeptic-mind.blogspot.be/2011/07/explanation-of-chapter-2-verse-193-in.html ) etc etc

however, language is a reality in evolution : you can use the words and the categories you want, but if you are the only one using them, they are of little use

best

saying that the Quran does not have a word for non-belief (without even considering what constitutes disbelief) is to express cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty etc etc.

have a nice day

best

If you read the Quran and sunnah, you will see that it is not "misinterpretation", but just a "different interpretation" to the one you favour. Islamic scripture in ambiguous, contradictory and therefore open to interpretation. The "extremists" take a literalist, unedited approach, probably closer to the Islam that was practiced by Muhammad. The "moderates" thake a more modern, revisionist approach, closer to the Islam practiced by modern moderates.

I agree that the latter is far more desirable, but it is not necessarily more legitimate from a scriptural sense.