Hadi Matar, the man who brutally attacked renowned author Salman Rushdie onstage in 2022, was convicted on Friday of attempted murder and assault. The 27-year-old from New Jersey, who stabbed Rushdie more than a dozen times during a literary event at the Chautauqua Institution in western New York, now faces up to 25 years in prison when sentenced on April 23.
The conviction marks the culmination of a case that revived discussions on religious extremism, free speech, and the long shadow cast by a decades-old fatwa issued against Rushdie following the publication of The Satanic Verses in 1988. But why did Matar, born more than a decade after the fatwa, feel compelled to carry out such an attack?
The Attack: A Calculated Assault
Matar, a dual citizen of the United States and Lebanon, rushed the stage as Rushdie was being introduced for a lecture about protecting writers from harm. Armed with a knife, he inflicted deep wounds to Rushdie’s neck, stomach, chest, hand, and right eye—permanently blinding the author in that eye. Rushdie, now 77, testified in court that he initially thought he was being punched, only to see his own blood spilling onto his clothes.
Video footage of the attack played in court showed the frenzied nature of Matar’s assault. The jury deliberated for just two hours before returning a guilty verdict, a swift decision in a case that prosecutors argued was an unmistakable act of premeditated violence.
The Motivation: The Legacy of a Fatwa
To understand the attack, one must go back to 1989, when Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa calling for Rushdie’s assassination over The Satanic Verses, which was deemed blasphemous by some Muslims. The decree led to book bans, violent protests, and multiple assassination attempts against those associated with the book. Several translators and publishers of the novel were attacked, some fatally.
Despite Iran’s official stance in the late 1990s that it would no longer actively pursue the fatwa, hardline elements continued to promote it, with some Iranian organizations offering millions in bounties for Rushdie’s murder. Over the years, Rushdie moved in and out of protective custody, even attempting to lead a normal public life.
Matar, though not born at the time of the fatwa’s issuance, appears to have been radicalized by its lingering influence. In a 2022 interview with the New York Post, he admitted to harboring hatred for Rushdie, claiming the author had “attacked Islam.” He expressed surprise that Rushdie had survived and showed no remorse for his actions.
Radicalization and Hezbollah Ties
Prosecutors revealed during the trial that Matar had been in contact with extremist elements online and had traveled to Lebanon, where his mother’s family lived. His social media activity and communications suggested sympathies with Hezbollah, the Iran-backed militant group and political party that the U.S. has designated as a terrorist organization. While no direct evidence linked Hezbollah to the attack, prosecutors argued that Matar’s worldview had been shaped by the ideological currents that have long endorsed violence against Rushdie.
Matar’s own mother, in an interview with The Daily Mail, distanced herself from her son’s actions, saying he had become increasingly withdrawn and radicalized after visiting Lebanon. “I was expecting him to come back motivated, to complete his education, to get a job,” she said. “But instead, he locked himself in the basement. He had changed a lot; he didn’t say anything to me or his sisters for months.”
The Trial: A Defense That Fell Flat
Matar’s legal team argued that while the attack was brutal, prosecutors had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to kill Rushdie—a requirement for an attempted murder conviction. His attorneys pointed out that Rushdie himself had called the attack an “assault” rather than an assassination attempt. However, the jury was ultimately unconvinced, especially after seeing slow-motion footage of the attack, which showed Matar targeting Rushdie with precision.
Defense lawyer Andrew Brautigam attempted to argue that Matar should have been charged with assault rather than attempted murder. But District Attorney Jason Schmidt, in his closing arguments, emphasized the methodical and targeted nature of the attack. “There were a lot of people around that day, but there was only one person who was targeted,” Schmidt told the jury.
The Aftermath: What This Means for Free Speech
The attack on Rushdie reignited global discussions on the power of religious extremism to silence dissenting voices. Rushdie, who has long championed free expression, remains a symbol of resilience against censorship. Following the verdict, he issued a brief statement, thanking the public for their support and reaffirming his commitment to writing and speaking freely despite the threats that have haunted him for decades.
Matar, meanwhile, awaits sentencing and could face additional federal terrorism-related charges in a separate trial in Buffalo. Prosecutors allege that his attack on Rushdie was an act of terrorism and that he provided material support to Hezbollah. If convicted on those charges, he could face life in prison.
For now, justice has been served in Chautauqua County, but the broader war against ideological violence and censorship rages on. The conviction of Hadi Matar is not just about one man’s misguided attempt to carry out a decades-old death sentence—it is about the ongoing battle between free expression and those who seek to suppress it through fear and violence.
Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly available information and reports regarding the trial and conviction of Hadi Matar. It aims to provide a factual and analytical perspective on the case, its historical context, and its broader implications. Any opinions expressed are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal or political endorsements.
