Additional Coverage:
BUFFALO, N.Y. – Four years after the stabbing attack that nearly claimed his life on a public stage, acclaimed author Salman Rushdie once again faced his assailant in a federal courtroom Thursday. Sitting across from Hadi Matar, the man convicted in connection with the 2022 attack, Rushdie recounted the terrifying moments of the assault to the jury.
Rushdie described initially feeling what he believed was a punch beneath his chin, followed by the sensation of blood pouring from his neck. “I was on the stage, lying down, with an enormous pool of blood all around me,” he testified. “It was an enormous and expansive lake of blood.”
During his testimony at the terrorism trial, Rushdie, 79, removed his glasses to reveal his now-blind right eye, a lasting injury from the attack. Matar, who has pleaded not guilty to federal terrorism charges, was convicted in state court for attempted murder related to the stabbing that took place at the Chautauqua Institution, where Rushdie was scheduled to speak about the threats faced by writers and artists.
“The knife was a millimeter from my brain,” Rushdie recounted, detailing the 15 slashes inflicted by Matar, who approached him from behind on stage. The attack left Rushdie with a damaged liver, temporary paralysis in his left hand, and a period on a ventilator. Witnesses, including fellow speaker Henry Reese, rushed to his aid, restraining Matar until law enforcement intervened.
Throughout the proceedings, Matar appeared disengaged, occasionally looking down or consulting with his attorney, and sparingly making eye contact with Rushdie, who briefly glanced toward him.
The defense questioned Rushdie about his knowledge of Matar’s potential terrorist affiliations, to which Rushdie responded, “I had no knowledge, but I had my suspicions.” Matar’s attorneys contend that prosecutors have not proven his intent or mindset at the time of the assault, a critical factor in pursuing terrorism charges that could carry a life sentence.
The background to the attack is rooted in a 1989 fatwa issued by Iran’s late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, calling for Rushdie’s death over his novel “The Satanic Verses,” which some Muslim communities viewed as blasphemous. The decree forced Rushdie into years of hiding despite the Iranian government’s eventual distancing from the order in 1998, which was never officially revoked.
Rushdie noted that for over two decades, he lived openly without incident. When defense counsel pressed whether he anticipated backlash from the book, Rushdie remarked, “Probably, but I don’t believe the book to be on trial here.
I believe someone else is on trial.” The judge later struck this comment from the official record.
Prosecutors argue that Matar was motivated by extremist rhetoric, including statements by the late Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, and had developed a fixation on Rushdie beginning in 2020. Evidence presented includes Matar’s materials supporting Hezbollah and a fake ID bearing a name similar to that of a Hezbollah figure. Matar holds dual U.S. and Lebanese citizenship.
Matar’s defense asserts the government is relying on circumstantial evidence without clear proof of his intent at the time of the attack. Security at the event was minimal, with just a state trooper and sheriff’s deputy present, a fact the defense has used to question whether the fatwa was a significant factor that day.
While Matar declined to testify in his state trial, his attorney indicated he may take the stand during the federal proceedings.
Salman Rushdie, born in India, raised in Britain, and now a U.S. citizen, is a celebrated author who won the Booker Prize in 1981 for “Midnight’s Children.” His recent work includes the 2023 collection “The Eleventh Hour.”
Iran’s government has denied involvement in the attack, though a former spokesperson suggested Rushdie provoked the incident by offending Islam. Hezbollah has not commented on the matter.
As the trial continues, the testimony sheds light not only on the brutal assault but also on the lingering impact of decades-old political and religious tensions surrounding Rushdie’s work.