Federal Jury Convicts Hadi Matar in Rushdie Stabbing Case

A federal jury in Buffalo, New York, took just two hours to convict Hadi Matar, 28, on all counts of terrorism for the 2022 knife attack on celebrated author Salman Rushdie. The verdict, delivered Wednesday, found Matar guilty of attempting to provide material support to Hezbollah — the Iran-backed militant group designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. — and of engaging in terrorism transcending national boundaries.

Matar was already serving a 25-year prison term after a state court found him guilty of attempted murder in February 2025 for the same assault. The new federal conviction potentially adds life imprisonment; sentencing is scheduled for November 3.

The attack occurred on August 12, 2022, at the Chautauqua Institution in Mayville, New York, where Rushdie was about to give a lecture. Matar rushed the stage and stabbed the 75-year-old author more than a dozen times, causing injuries that left Rushdie blind in his right eye and damaged internal organs. Audience members subdued the attacker, and Rushdie later chronicled the ordeal and his recovery in the memoir Knife.

Prosecutors argued, and evidence showed, that Matar spent over a year researching the 1989 fatwa issued by then-Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, which called for Muslims to kill Rushdie over his novel The Satanic Verses. The fatwa, reaffirmed by current leader Ali Khamenei in 2017, led to violence including the 1991 murder of Rushdie’s Japanese translator, Hitoshi Igarashi.

How the Terrorism Prosecution Shapes the Legacy of the Fatwa

The Case’s Terrorism Dimension

Unlike the state attempted-murder trial, the federal prosecution centered on terrorism. By finding Matar guilty of providing material support to Hezbollah, the jury accepted that his actions were not merely a lone attack but part of a broader campaign inspired and encouraged by a designated terrorist organization. The conviction relies on evidence that Matar followed Hezbollah’s endorsement of the fatwa and sought to fulfill the edict. This legal framing underscores the U.S. government’s strategy to treat such ideologically motivated assaults as acts of international terrorism, even when committed by a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil.

The Fatwa’s Enduring Threat

The Rushdie case highlights how a religious edict from 1989 continues to generate violence decades later. Although the Iranian government officially distanced itself from the fatwa in 1998, its re-endorsement by Hezbollah in 2006 and by Supreme Leader Khamenei in 2017 kept the threat alive. Matar’s research into the fatwa, as presented at trial, illustrates that extremist material can radicalize individuals far removed from the original geopolitical context. The attack on Rushdie at a public arts venue shows that the fatwa’s reach remains unpredictable and that open societies face challenges in protecting speech while ensuring security.

Voice and Resilience

Rushdie’s testimony — his first public account under oath — added a personal dimension to the prosecution. The 79-year-old author, who spent a decade in hiding after the fatwa, later reclaimed a public life. The memoir Knife and his willingness to face the courtroom underline a symbolic victory over intimidation. However, the attack’s toll — partial blindness and lasting organ damage — serves as a stark reminder of the risks borne by those whose expression provokes violent opposition.