Is this a fallacy?

When i argued about a pattern in argument in which has a form like this:
example 1
"What do you know about politics? you're not even a politician!"
example 2
"what do you know about my religion? you're not even a follower of my religion!"
is one kind of ad hominem fallacy,
and yet im still not sure the right fallacy to address the pattern.

my friend asked me if this is an acceptable answer to the pattern,by using another pattern
example 1
"The fact that i don't know about politics maybe because politics is just rotten to the core. Maybe it is because the government hides too many truths?"
example 2
"The fact that i didn't know anything about your religion perhaps because you didn't even share what you experienced with your religion. Maybe you need to tell me more about your religion so that i could understand better?"

im not really sure, but it seems like a fallacy to me,
did my friend just using another fallacy to answer a fallacy?
what's the right fallacy that i can use to address my friend's pattern?

In the first two examples I identify the pattern of ad hominem fallacy in the form of personal attack. The pattern looks like this:

Person 1 claims x
Person 2 attack the person
Therefore, claim x is false.

In the first example , the person committing the fallacy assumes that you need to be a politician in order to have some declarative knowledge about politics. Therefore, your supposed argument or opinion (regarding a politic topic) is false.

The assumption contained in the second example is that you need some kind of experience (of conversion and practice) in order to understand one's religion/religious practice. It may be true that an "inside view" of a religion provides some knowledge about its practice it does not follow that you have to be "inside" to obtain knowledge about it. There are other sources of knowledge that can shed light on various practices of religions and religious experiences (i.e., books, testimonies etc.).

In the second part,in first example it seems that the person making the claim it's adding a ad hoc clause that is :" politics is just rotten to the core" as a reason for the other person not being capable of acquiring knowledge about it. In this way, the other person ceases to be responsible for the understanding of politics. It may be a tactic (red herring, possibly) that diverts from the fact that the person making the claim committed a fallacy! (My opinion)

The second example resembles the second example in the first part.

I strongly believe that in order to correctly evaluate an argument you have to braking it down into premises and conclusion/s. In this way, you will be able to better identify the fallacies in them.

Sava has a good analysis. I would just like to add:

"The fact that i don't know about politics maybe because politics is just rotten to the core. Maybe it is because the government hides too many truths?"

Is actually a self-defeating (or self-refuting ) argument. If one admits not knowing about X, it is absurd for one to make claims about X. If they don't know about politics, then they don't know that it is "rotten to the core" nor can they reasonable make the assumption that they hide too many truths (even if in a seemingly benign question form). It would be like saying, "I don't know anything about atheists and I don't want to know anything about atheists because they all worship SATAN."

One does not require complete knowledge about a subject to be able to express an opinion on it if the opinion is relevant. If a particular politician has committed perjury it is reasonable to declare the person as dishonest. Samuel L. Jackson makes the point about how he won't eat pork because pigs are filthy animals; they will nest in their own excrement. "Sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie but I won't eat [them]." Here he is saying he has no knowledge of the taste of sewer rat but still wouldn't try them because they are a dirty animal.