And yes, I do think I’m right about why people would be drawn to Yuldashev. There’s nothing wrong with that appeal at all in my book. The way the employees were treated is extremely commendable, and the employers deserved a good reputation for that.

I think “socialism” is a better term than charity because it’s more than just charity. Granted, the state doesn’t run it, but it seems to aspire to play the same protective role of a socialist system. Again, that’s value-neutral as far as I’m concerned.

As for the planning in advance, I am not convinced either way. It’s not the violence itself or attacking the SNB that’s thuggish, it’s the treatment of their prisoners, one of whom was a human rights activist.

It is hard to talk about the group and capture that “Akramians” aren’t really members so much as they are just people who like the idea. It’s kind of like how we might talk about nihilists despite there not being a membership process to become a nihilist.

Also, why your use of the phrase “Islamic socialism” in relation to a set of teachings that is avowedly non-political? Granted, the Forum 18 writer said it first, but a better phrase might be “Islamic charity,” unless we are prepared to call much American religious charitable activity “socialism.”

You seem to contend that any sympathy that exists for the followers of Akram Yuldashev seems largely to be the result of their fusion of Islam and “socialist economics.” How is giving people jobs at a livable wage socialism? is it fair to say that having an excellent healthcare policy for your employees is socialist?

I also have reservations about calling the people who acted violently “grade-A thugs.” Weak-minded thugs, maybe. But you seem to imply that they were organized and had planned all their activities far in advance. I rather think they were more likely a group of men associated somehow with the followers of Akram Yuldashev who, while not particularly bright, reacted violently and wildly in a situation where they at last had an opportunity to vent their frustrations.

But that’s just me. Call me the fool, I guess.

The businessmen have connections to him if I recall correctly. Technically the group may not exist and no one linked to it may have ever actually called for violence, but the ideas have followers.

So, my comment is two-fold–is there any information or were there any interviews with some of these men or women involved in the “events” in Andijon that indicates they are actual members of Akramiya? or, on the other hand, isn’t this a string that we should be watching?

Unless there was an interview out there where these guys claim to be members of Akramiya, I think the key word to keep reporting accurate (and analysis) would be “allegedly”. These men were charged by the Uzbek government with membership in that organization—and any of us who follow Uzbek trials knows that they don’t necessarily have any relation to reality, or in fact attempt to have one.

I specifically remember reading an interview with two of the 23 escaped defendants on RFE/RL where they both catagorically denied being members of Akramiya and claimed that the whole thing was a setup in order to take their businesses away from them.

Granted, they had some things at stake and maybe lots of reasons not to admit to being members of this group, but I’m interested to know if you had seen stuff linking them apart from what the Uzbek government claims.