
Attacker who stabbed author Salman Rushdie sentenced to 25 years in prison
The man who stabbed author Salman Rushdie, leaving him blind in one eye, has been sentenced to 25 years in prison, the maximum term possible in the case.
Friday's sentencing hearing was the culmination of a relatively swift trial that began on February 4.
There was little ambiguity about the central events underlying the case: In August 2022, a 24-year-old named Hadi Matar rushed the stage of an amphitheatre where Rushdie was delivering a public lecture for New York's Chautauqua Institution.
Matar stabbed Rushdie approximately 15 times, delivering cuts to his neck, body and head. After being airlifted to a hospital, Rushdie eventually lost sight in one eye. Another speaker — Henry Reese, who runs a nonprofit for writers in exile — also received injuries, including a stab wound.
Rushdie, now 77, testified in the state-level trial against Matar. 'He was hitting me repeatedly. Hitting and slashing,' the novelist said.
He added that he thought at first he was being struck by fists, not a knife. It was only later that he realised the severity of his situation: 'I saw a large quantity of blood pouring onto my clothes.'
The injuries resulted in Rushdie undergoing painful surgeries, including to seal his blinded eye. He spent months in recovery. 'I'm not as energetic as I used to be. I'm not as physically strong as I used to be,' he told the court.
On February 21, after less than two hours of deliberation, a jury in western New York found Matar both guilty of attempted murder for his attack on Rushdie and of assault for the injuries to Reese.
In Friday's hearing, Matar received 25 years for the attempted murder sentence and seven for the assault on Reese, to be served at the same time since the attacks happened at the same time.
Rushdie, a British American novelist, was born in India to a Muslim family. His books have won wide acclaim: His novel Midnight's Children earned the Booker Prize, a top literary honour awarded each year to a work of English-language fiction.
But it was his fourth novel, The Satanic Verses, in 1988 that stirred up lasting controversy, specifically for passages deemed blasphemous to Muslims. By 1989, Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had issued a fatwa calling for Rushdie's death.
The announcement sent Rushdie into hiding, and the British government assigned him round-the-clock protection. Deadly protests accompanied the novel's publication, and bookstores, along with those close to Rushdie, faced violent attacks.
Before Friday's sentencing, Matar also delivered a statement to the court voicing his opposition to Rushdie and his work.
'Salman Rushdie wants to disrespect other people,' said Matar. 'He wants to be a bully, he wants to bully other people. I don't agree with that.'
Later, outside the courtroom, defence lawyer Nathaniel Barone took questions about whether his client felt regret or remorse about his actions.
' I think that's a fair question, and I can't answer that,' he responded. 'All I can tell you is that I think that, unfortunately, people make bad decisions, and it's something that certainly they regret or they're remorseful about, but they may have a difficult time expressing that for whatever reasons.'
Barone added that he felt Matar would have acted differently in hindsight. ' I know, if he had the opportunity, he would not be sitting where he is sitting today. And if he could change things, he would.'
Matar's defence team had sought a lesser sentence of 12 years in prison and plans to appeal the verdict, arguing that the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt an intent to kill Rushdie.
Barone also questioned the intense level of scrutiny on the case, calling it a 'publicity sponge'. He argued that his client was denied the presumption of innocence due to any suspect.
The prosecution, however, praised the sentencing hearing's outcome as justice for the pain Rushdie continues to endure.
'He's traumatised. He has nightmares about what he experienced,' Chautauqua County District Attorney Jason Schmidt said after the hearing.
'Obviously, this is a major setback for an individual that was starting to emerge in his very later years of life into society after going into hiding after the fatwa.'
In explaining to the judge why he was pushing for the maximum sentence, Schmidt said that Matar 'designed this attack so that he could inflict the most amount of damage, not just upon Mr. Rushdie, but upon this community, upon the 1,400 people who were there to watch it'.
Separately, Matar, now 27, faces three counts of federal terrorism-related charges in the US, including providing material support to terrorists and committing terrorism that transcends national boundaries.
'We allege that, in attempting to murder Salman Rushdie in New York in 2022, Hadi Matar committed an act of terrorism in the name of Hezbollah, a designated terrorist organization aligned with the Iranian regime,' former US Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement. Iran, however, has denied involvement in Matar's attack on Rushdie.
Rushdie, meanwhile, has channelled his experiences from the attack into a memoir called Knife: Meditations After an Attempted Murder.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Al Jazeera
5 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Columbia University deserves to lose its accreditation
On June 4, the United States Department of Education notified the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) accrediting agency that its member institution Columbia University deserves to have its accreditation pulled. It accused the university of ostensibly being 'in violation of federal antidiscrimination laws' for supposedly failing 'to meaningfully protect Jewish students against severe and pervasive harassment'. This claim is, of course, wrong. It is a blatant mischaracterisation of the events that have taken place on campus over the last 19 months. Yet, it is also true that during that time Columbia violated the terms of its accreditation: by violently abrogating the academic freedom and viewpoint diversity of antigenocide protesters via institutional sanction and the deployment of police on campus. In this sense, Columbia does deserve to lose its accreditation. MSCHE's accreditation policy, which is standard across the industry, states that an 'accredited institution' must possess and demonstrate both 'a commitment to academic freedom, intellectual freedom, freedom of expression' and 'a climate that fosters respect among students, faculty, staff, and administration from a range of diverse backgrounds, ideas, and perspectives'. It is stunningly evident that since October 7, 2023, Columbia University has egregiously and repeatedly failed to satisfy the MSCHE's fundamental requirements due to its response to antigenocide protests on campus concerning Gaza and Palestine. The violent removal, suspension, and arrest of peaceful student protesters and faculty critics should be understood to constitute a violation of the institution's obligation to protect freedom of expression and academic freedom. On November 10, 2023, Columbia suspended Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP) after they organised a peaceful protest for Palestinian rights. The administration justified the suspension by claiming the groups used 'threatening rhetoric and intimidation'. However, media reports, witnesses and university insiders revealed that the suspension was based on an incident involving an unaffiliated individual whose actions were condemned by the organisers and that no formal disciplinary process or appeals process was allowed by the university. It was later uncovered that Columbia administrators had unilaterally altered language in its official policies on student groups just before suspending the SJP and JVP. In January, Katherine Franke, a tenured law professor, retired and said she was 'effectively terminated' by Columbia after facing public and congressional criticism for a media interview criticising students who formerly served in the Israeli army. Similarly, the university has recently acknowledged doling out 'multi-year suspensions, temporary degree revocation and expulsions' to dozens of students who participated in 2024 antigenocide protests. One of those expelled, Jewish PhD student Grant Miner, president of the Student Workers of Columbia, noted that all of the students censured by the university 'had been cleared of any criminal wrongdoing'. Perhaps worst of all, Columbia has, on repeated occasions, invited the New York Police Department (NYPD) onto campus to intervene against student expression. On April 30, 2024, according to the university's own report, the NYPD arrested 44 students and individuals with apparent associations with the university. Likewise, in early May this year, about 70 students were arrested after participating in an 'occupation' of the university's library. The NYPD explicitly acknowledged that the presence of its officers on campus was 'at the direct request of Columbia University'. There is little question each of these incidents constitutes blatant stifling of academic freedom and viewpoint diversity. The disproportionate targeting of Arab, Muslim, Palestinian and Jewish students and allies can be viewed as discriminatory, undermining the institution's commitment to equitable treatment and inclusive learning environments, in clear violation of MSCHE's guiding principles on equity, diversity and inclusion. These decisions to suppress protests were made unilaterally by senior administration at Columbia – without input from faculty, students or shared governance bodies – clearly signalling a lack of adherence to MSCHE's accreditation policy standard on governance, leadership and administration. By failing to show 'a commitment to shared governance' with 'administrative decision-making that reflects fairness and transparency', Columbia has failed to meet the standards of accreditation outlined by the MSCHE. But Columbia University is not alone in failing to abide by guiding principles of its accreditation. At Muhlenberg College in Pennsylvania, Jewish Associate Professor Maura Finkelstein was summarily fired for engaging in social media critiques of Israel's genocide in Gaza. Similarly, at Northwestern University, Assistant Professor Steven Thrasher was subjected to multiple investigations in relation to his support of the student antigenocide encampment on campus and was ultimately denied tenure in a decision he characterised as an effort designed to not just silence him but also to bully him so that 'students, journalists, faculty, staff and activists across campus and throughout the country [may be intimidated] into silencing themselves'. Students too have faced repression across the United States. Indeed, it has been estimated that by July 2024, at least 3,100 students had been arrested for participation in campus antigenocide protests. On November 6, 2023, Brandeis University became the first private university in the US to ban its student chapter of the SJP, for 'conduct that supports Hamas'. In April 2024, Cornell University suspended several students involved in pro-Palestinian encampment protests, citing violations of campus policies. Then in May, police brutalised students with pepper spray at George Washington University while arresting 33 people in the violent clearing-out of its student encampment. At Vanderbilt University, students were arrested and expelled for occupying an administration building. In the most recent news, it has become clear that the University of Michigan has spent at least $800,000 hiring dozens of private investigators to surveil antigenocide student protesters on and off campus in Ann Arbor. These examples are merely a small sample of what has occurred across the US, Canada and Europe since long before October 7, 2023. This is a broader existential crisis in higher education in which the free expression of students is being suppressed at the cost of the values these universities purport to espouse. Despite appearances, this crisis has very little to do with the heavy-handed Trump administration. It is, rather, the self-inflicted consequence of the decisions of university administrators whose allegiances are now first and foremost to donors and corporate stakeholders rather than to their educational missions. If universities are to exist in any plausible and practical sense as institutions devoted to genuine knowledge production and pedagogical development, it is essential that they robustly fulfil accreditation requirements for academic and intellectual freedom, diversity, and fair and transparent administration and governance. There can be no Palestine exception to that. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.


Al Jazeera
9 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Did Trump thank National Guard even before troops reached Los Angeles?
On June 8, United States President Donald Trump praised the California National Guard for its response to Los Angeles immigration enforcement protests. 'Great job by the National Guard in Los Angeles after two days of violence, clashes and unrest,' he wrote on Truth Social at 02:41 EDT, Eastern Daylight Time, (06:41 GMT) on Tuesday. He ended the post, 'Thank you to the National Guard for a job well done!' But the National Guard had not yet arrived in Los Angeles, according to news reports and a spokesperson for the California governor. The protests in downtown Los Angeles began on June 6 in response to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) declared the protests an 'unlawful assembly' the same evening and began using tear gas, rubber bullets and other deterrents. Protests continued throughout the weekend, with reports of vandalism, burning cars and looting. Trump announced on June 7 that he was deploying 2,000 California National Guard members, an action that Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Governor Gavin Newsom, both Democrats, criticised as an unnecessary escalation. Less than an hour after Trump's Truth Social post, Bass said the National Guard was not on scene. 'Just to be clear, the National Guard has not been deployed in the City of Los Angeles,' she wrote on X. Later that morning, Newsom criticised Trump's post praising the National Guard by pointing out the timeline discrepancy. 'For those keeping track, Donald Trump's National Guard had not been deployed on the ground when he posted this,' Newsom wrote on X. Diana Crofts-Pelayo, a Newsom spokesperson, told PolitiFact the National Guard deployed on June 8 between 02:00 PDT, Pacific Daylight Time, and 04:00 PDT, which is 05:00 EDT to 07:00 EDT (09:00 GMT to 11:00 GMT). The first media reports of California National Guard troops on the ground in Los Angeles were on June 8 at about 06:00 PDT, or about 09:00 EDT (13:00 GMT). Here's what we know about the timeline of California National Guard troop activation and arrival. 00:51 EDT (04:51 GMT): United States Northern Command, a Department of Defense sector that assists with National Guard oversight, said on X that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth 'directed US Northern Command to assume command of 2,000 California National Guard forces to protect federal personnel and federal property in the greater Los Angeles area'. The post said active-duty US Marines might also be called to respond. 02:41 EDT (06:41 GMT): Trump praised the National Guard for a 'great job', criticised Newsom and Bass, and described the protests as violent unrest. 03:22 EDT (07:22 GMT): Bass posted on X that the National Guard was not yet present. 04:32 EDT (08:32 GMT): CNN reported it had 'seen no evidence that Guard units are on the ground'. Between 05:00 EDT and 07:00 EDT (09:00 GMT-11:00 GMT): The National Guard deployed during this timeframe, according to Crofts-Pelayo. About 09:00 EDT (13:00 GMT): The Washington Post reported that the earliest photos and videos of National Guard members arriving in Los Angeles were captured around this time, which was 06:00 PDT, or 09:00 EDT (13:00 GMT). 11:03 EDT (15:03 GMT): US Northern Command reported that members of the California National Guard had arrived in Los Angeles: 'Can confirm that elements of the 79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team from the California National Guard have begun deploying to the Los Angeles area, with some already on the ground.' 12:07 EDT (16:07 GMT): US Northern Command announced that 300 members of the California National Guard were deployed to three locations in the Los Angeles area. 12:08 EDT (16:08 GMT): The California National Guard members gathered near the Metropolitan Detention Centre in downtown LA, the Los Angeles Times reported. 12:17 EDT (16:17 GMT): The LAPD announced that the National Guard had been deployed to federal facilities. About 13:30 EDT (17:30 GMT): The New York Times reported that at 10:30 PDT, 'nearly 300 members of the California Guard took positions at three different sites around the city'. KABC-TV, a local news channel, reported that National Guard members had appeared in downtown Los Angeles and posted video of troops driving through the city of Paramount. 12:29 EDT (18:29 GMT): US Northern Command posted photos of California National Guard members in LA, working with the Department of Homeland Security. 17:06 EDT (21:06 GMT): Trump said he directed federal agencies to coordinate their response to the Los Angeles protests. 18:27 EDT (22:27 GMT): Newsom posted that he 'formally requested the Trump Administration rescind their unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles County and return them to [his] command'. 20:03 EDT (00:03 GMT): US Northern Command shared a press release on X announcing that approximately 2,000 members of the California National Guard had been 'placed under federal command' to be ready to assist in efforts against LA protests. It reiterated that 300 members of the California Army National Guard were deployed at three locations. 22:23 EDT (02:23 GMT): Newsom said in an MSNBC interview that he would file a lawsuit against Trump for taking over the California National Guard. PolitiFact researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.


Al Jazeera
20 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Chinese man in US pleads guilty to exporting guns, ammo to North Korea
A Chinese man living illegally in the United States has pleaded guilty to exporting guns, ammunition and other military items to North Korea at the direction of Pyongyang, the US Department of Justice has said. Shenghua Wen, of Ontario, California, admitted to one count of conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act – a 1977 law that empowers the president to restrict commerce with countries on national security grounds – and one count of acting as an illegal agent of a foreign government, the Justice Department said on Monday. Wen, 42, shipped at least three containers of guns bound for North Korea in 2023, one of which arrived in Nampo, North Korea, via Hong Kong, according to prosecutors. To facilitate the scheme, Wen bought a firearms business in Houston, Texas, and used false paperwork to conceal the contents of his shipping containers, according to prosecutors. Wen, who was arrested in December, also allegedly bought approximately 60,000 rounds of 9mm ammunition and obtained 'sensitive technology', including a chemical threat identification device, for shipment to North Korea. Wen was allegedly directed to procure the weapons and sensitive goods by North Korean officials he met at the North Korean Embassy in China before entering the US on a student visa in 2012. Wen was allegedly transferred about $2m to carry out the scheme. 'Wen admitted that at all relevant times he knew that it was illegal to ship firearms, ammunition, and sensitive technology to North Korea. He also admitted to never having the required licenses to export ammunition, firearms, and the above-described devices to North Korea,' the US Attorney's Office for the Central District of California said in a press release. 'He further admitted to acting at the direction of North Korean government officials and that he had not provided notification to the Attorney General of the United States that he was acting in the United States at the direction and control of North Korea as required by law.' During questioning by the FBI, Wen said he believed the North Korean government wanted the weapons and ammunition to prepare for an attack against South Korea, according to a criminal complaint filed in September. Wen is due to face court for sentencing in August. He faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison for violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and up to 10 years for acting as an illegal agent of a foreign government.