Hadi Matar, who stabbed Salman Rushdie in 2022, was found guilty of federal terrorism charges linked to the attack, which prosecutors said was inspired by a 1989 fatwa calling for the author’s death over his novel The Satanic Verses.
Hadi Matar, the man who stabbed Salman Rushdie in 2022, was convicted on Wednesday of federal terrorism charges tied to the attack, marking a pivotal legal milestone in a case that has drawn global attention to the enduring legacy of the fatwa against the author. The jury in Buffalo, New York, delivered its verdict after just two hours of deliberation, finding Matar guilty on all counts, including providing material support to Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, and engaging in transnational terrorism.
Conviction and Charges
Matar, 28, faces a potential life sentence when he is sentenced on November 3 for the 2022 attack, which left Rushdie blind in one eye. The federal charges stemmed from prosecutors’ assertion that Matar acted on behalf of Iran and Hezbollah, citing his research into the 1989 fatwa issued by the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, which called for Rushdie’s death over The Satanic Verses.
The novel, which features a dream sequence involving the Prophet Muhammad, sparked widespread protests and a $3 million bounty offered by an Iranian foundation for his assassination.
The trial, which began last Tuesday, saw Rushdie testify about the attack, describing how he was stabbed 15 times during a speaking engagement at the Chautauqua Institution. Matar, who had already been serving a 25-year state prison sentence for attempted murder, chose not to testify during the federal trial, with his lawyer, Nathaniel Barone, arguing that prosecutors lacked evidence of his intent.
The Fatwa and Its Legacy
The 1989 fatwa, issued by Khomeini, remains a focal point of the case. While Iran’s government has distanced itself from the decree, Hezbollah’s late leader Hassan Nasrallah endorsed it in 2006, and Khomeini’s successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reaffirmed its validity in 2017, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Rushdie, who was born in India and later became a U.S. citizen, spent years in hiding after the fatwa was issued, only emerging in the 1990s after Iran’s government began to scale back its support for the decree.
Prosecutors argued that Matar’s research into the fatwa, including private notes stating we need to kill him ASAP
and become a warrior and just get it over with,
demonstrated his intent to carry out the decree. Matar, however, has consistently denied any connection to Iran or Hezbollah, with his defense team emphasizing that he had no evidence of direct ties to the groups.
Legal Arguments and Defense
Matar’s defense team, led by Barone, contended that prosecutors had failed to prove his motivation, arguing that there’s no facts. There’s no hard evidence.
They highlighted that Matar had previously described Hezbollah as a terrorist organization in a 2016 paper, a detail cited by prosecutors during the trial. Barone also emphasized that Matar’s actions were not tied to any foreign government, stating, There could be a number of reasonable, plausible explanations as to what he was thinking.
The judge rejected the defense’s motion to dismiss the case, allowing the trial to proceed. Matar’s state court conviction in February 2025 for attempted murder was finalized before the federal trial, with his 25-year sentence already in effect. The federal conviction, however, could lead to a life term, a stark escalation of his legal consequences.
Rushdie’s Survival and Impact
The case has also reignited debates about the fatwa’s legacy. While Iran’s government has not officially revoked the decree, the country’s 2017 statement from Khamenei suggested it remains in effect.
Broader Implications
The conviction underscores the legal and political complexities of terrorism charges tied to ideological motivations.
For Rushdie, the verdict brings a measure of closure, though the threat of violence against him remains. As Matar’s sentencing approaches, the case continues to highlight the intersection of law, ideology, and international relations in the modern era.
