Even with all our differences, the nation is united in mourning the merciless killing of 42 year-old free thinker, prominent writer, engineer, humanist and blogger, Avijit Roy. Avijit, author of at least seven books, wrote extensively on promoting secular freedom and spoke openly about his religious beliefs. While returning home from Boi Mela Thursday night, Avijit was hacked to death with machetes and his wife, Rafida Ahmed, was seriously injured by unidentified assailants. Photos of Rafida Ahmed, soaked in blood as Avijit's motionless body lay on the ground, have widely been circulating the internet. Horrifyingly, her cries for help fell on deaf ears as bystanders simply stood still near his body. Describing what was an unbelievable moment of inaction, a witness confessed that "no one came forward" to help.

Social media has been abuzz for the past few days with the news of Avijit's senseless killing. While most news organisations in Bangladesh have blamed growing religious extremism for the attack, some in the western media were quick to liken Avijit's

death to the Charlie Hebdo massacre. On February 27, a headline on Vox read "Bangladesh's Charlie Hebdo? American atheist blogger murdered in Dhaka." International Business Times UK also termed Avijit as "Bangladesh's Charlie Hebdo." Many news sources have drawn similar conclusions.

These comparisons are problematic and disturbing, to say the least. A deeper look into the broader context surrounding the two events reveals the flaws of equating the Paris attack with Avijit's murder. We cannot let the media use his killing to propagate their oversimplified, convenient and bigoted narrative that further fuels Islamophobia.

DIFFERENT CONTEXTS

This is not to justify the horrific attack on Charlie Hebdo but let's get one thing straight. Unlike Charlie Hebdo, it is not a matter of debate whether or not Avijit's beliefs and thoughts were borderline hate speech, or if he was anti-Islam. Avijit did not draw desecrating cartoons of a religious figure revered by a marginalised and oppressed minority (Muslims in France) unlike Charlie Hebdo.

toons of a religious figure revered by a marginalised and oppressed minority (Muslims in France) unlike Charlie

Hebdo.

Avijit was a scientist, rationalist and humanist who wanted the people of his country to think critically. He had strong opinions about all religions; he did not have a bone to pick with Islam particularly. It is imperative that we take the different sociopolitical contexts of Bangladesh and France into account, because drawing identical parallels between Avijit and Charlie Hebdo is erroneous and dangerous.

Despite the meshed and complex roles of religion and secularism in our country, Bangladesh is known to be a moderate and tolerant Muslim majority state; our past (and current) governments even boast about being so. However, religious extremism in Bangladesh is increasingly becoming a challenging problem and is being recognised as a growing threat. This is largely a result of the failure of our political "democratic" institutions that have created a space for Islam to be distorted and catered as a political tool to the masses by religious militants.

Ansar Bangla-7's (the militant outfit that claimed responsibility for Avijit's death) condemnable actions should be seen in the context of the current volatile political situation. The climate of uncertainty and fear also provided

the militant outfits with a favourable atmosphere for carrying out such a brutal act given the current state of law and order in the country. The act of terror unleashed on Avijit does not speak for the majority of peaceful and tolerant Bangladeshis.

DON'T TAINT AVIJIT'S LEGACY As Muslims from all walks of life vehemently condemned the Charlie Hebdo massacre, many distanced themselves from the "Je suis Charlie" slogan because of what they considered an outright attack on their religion by the satirical magazine. However, Bangladeshis are largely united in their grief for Avijit's senseless murder as protesters of multiple faiths took to the streets and social media (#IAmAvijit) to call for justice. Avijit’s views on religion, often supported by scientific claims, must not be prioritised over his humanism; he held people of all faiths in the same esteem and respect. His views on religion must not be interpreted as his dislike for people who adhere to a certain religion. Avijit's beliefs were not extreme; being killed for them was extreme.

Avijit loved Bangladesh, his homeland. His friend Michael De Dora revealed that despite receiving threats,

Avijit frequently returned to Bangladesh to attend the book fairs. Avijit refused to be held back in fear; he wanted to speak with other bloggers and activists in Bangladesh. De Dora described Avijit as idealistic Avijit believed that even if anyone wanted to hurt him, they could at least have a dialogue.

Although most in the western media have been kind enough to attribute the hyphenated identity of "Bangladeshi-American” to Avijit, some in the media have been headlining Avijit's death by stripping him of his Bangladeshi identity. The Guardian's headline, for instance, reads, "American atheist blogger hacked to death in Bangladesh." CNN's headline reads, "American writer hacked to death in Bangladesh spoke out against extremists." Avijit being robbed of his Bangladeshi identity is not okay.

The news media must stop painting Avijit's death as just another "American" soldier fallen victim to religious extremism. Avijit is Bangladeshi first. He is a victim of hate and cruelty. Avijit is one of ours, and he is not Charlie Hebdo.

The writer is a graduate of University of California, Los Angeles.