Maria Fokin Sep 11, 2014:

@ Jill Now, your last sentence really does give a valid reason for your disagree with my answer and one for Christiano to take into consideration. Thank you for clearing that up.

The Misha Sep 11, 2014:

I am afraid you are in a wrong forum with this. This is about translating a specific term, not about sharing your views on the nature of religious beliefs, which, are just that, opinions. Unrelated opinions. I say you'd do well keeping them to yourself and using a more language-related rationale to justify your disagrees. Or, in the absence of any, abstain from those altogether.

Jill Conklin Achkasova Sep 11, 2014:

true believers any "true believer" in my mind knows that God requires his followers to love and accept one another, regardless of creed (apart from Satanist, vodoo and other black magic religions). Any Christian who hates another person and wishes his extermination has nothing to do with Christ or real Christianity; any Muslim who hates another person has nothing to do with Allah or true Islam. Hence "religious" conflicts end up being primarily political in nature: hatred of another group simply because they are different from "us" and call themselves by a different name. I never meant to offend anyone, just wanted to provide an explanation for my vote. Sorry it was misunderstood. I agree this has become a bit irrelevant. I guess my point was that a person who is инакомыслящий may not have enough of a following to be considered a religious minority - he may just be a muslim who thinks it is wrong to kill Christians...

Maria Fokin Sep 10, 2014:

@ Jill I am fully aware of what superficial means. If you say "superficial adherence to a group", it means the person in question is an adherent strictly in name and not a true believer. As for what you actually meant, if you were, let's say, a Quaker, it would be difficult to "feel unity" with the broader Christian faith while being persecuted by the latter (and here, we are talking about groups that are being not only persecuted, but exterminated). In either case, I don't see how this is relevant to the answer provided by me (regardless of one's opinion about its validity in this particular context).

Jill Conklin Achkasova Sep 9, 2014:

2 comments since you can't reply to a comment in the comment box for an answer: No offense intended: "superficial" just means that adherence to a group and belief are not necessarily related - you may consider yourself muslim, but have non-standard muslim beliefs, or you may belong to a minority group but feel unity with muslims or Christians, etc.

Regarding the correct term - I understand the target language is actually Portuguese, we are just helping the asker understand the term so he can better portray it in Portuguese. Hence the literal translation.

Max Deryagin Sep 9, 2014:

@ Jill Jill, please read the comment below. It applies to you the same way it applies to Donald.

Maria Fokin Sep 9, 2014:

@ Donald yes, if you are going to translate literally, it means dissident. However, that doesn't fit into all contexts. Here we are talking about religious persecution and in my experience dissident is usually used in political contexts. I could be wrong of course.

Donald Jacobson Sep 9, 2014:

Lilian is right: инакомыслящий человек

(inakomyslâŝij čelovek)

n. dissentient, one who opposes or disagrees

Alexandra Schneeuhr Sep 8, 2014:

I'd probably translate the expression "уничтожение инакомыслящих" rather than just the stand-alone "инакомыслящих" here, so that to continue the list: "...this eventually led to/ resulted in jihad, Crusades, Holy Inquisition and other manifestations of witch-hunting"(?). Though it all depends on the context, as always :)

P.L.F. Persio Sep 8, 2014:

Not only, but... I now think that dissidents, as suggested by AKhram, could quite fit the bill here.
Cristiano, you know the whole context better than us, see what works better in your text, and let us know.

Max Deryagin Sep 8, 2014:

There is a problem here The words "infidel" and "heretic" mean more or less the same thing, but the former is more often used in regard to Islam, whereas the latter is more often used in regards to Christianity. The problem is, you have both Jihad and crusades/inquisition in the same sentence.