A Critically Important Trial Has Just Begun, and No One Involved Will Speak About Motive

When the accused entered the court, he was dressed passably in a blue button-down t-shirt and black slacks. When his presence was announced, he stood up, said” Good morning”, and gave all present a cheery wave. Thus began one of the most significant tests of our time, despite all involved trying their hardest to deny every reason it is so crucial.

Hadi Matar was ultimately tried on Tuesday in court for trying to kill Salman Rushdie, the poet, back in August 2022. There is little, if any, uncertainty about Matar’s grief, even though he has pleaded not guilty, for he stabbed Rushdie several times in full view of a frightened group at the Chautauqua event. Matar was supposed to have gone on trial in Jan. 2024, but Rushdie wrote a book about the strike, and Matar’s defense lawyer, people keeper Nathaniel Barone, received a pause in the test so that he could survey the book. Although it’s difficult to understand how the victim’s opinion of the events may impact his client’s sadness, Barone managed to put the trial on hold for more than a year.

Now that it has begun, both Barone and his same number, Chautauqua County District Attorney Jason Schmidt, seemed strangely intent on preventing any conversation of Matar’s purpose. At the time of the punching, Madar tried to kill the man who had had the most famous bounty on his mind for 33 years since the Wild West’s days.

It was on Valentine’s Day, Feb. 14, 1989, that Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini called for Rushdie to be killed for supposedly blaspheming against Muhammad in his book” The Devilish Verses”. By 2022, Iran’s bounty on Rushdie’s head was$ 3 million. Without Khomeini’s dying judgment on Rushdie, Matar doesn’t have tried to kill him, and there would be no test. However, neither the trial nor the defense wants any speak of that as Matar is tried.

Matar himself was open about Rushdie’s motives. Back in Aug. 2022, he said:” I value the mullah. I think he’s a wonderful man. That’s as far as I may state about that”. Of Rushdie, Matar said:” I don’t like the person. I don’t believe he’s a very good people. I don’t enjoy him. I don’t enjoy him very little. He’s one who attacked Islam, he attacked their views, the idea systems”. Although Matar isn’t the most eloquent person in the world, what he said made it clear that he wanted Rushdie to be killed in accordance with Khomeini’s judgment.

Schmidt, but, insists all that is meaningless, saying:” Ok, I don’t believe we have to get into problems of Mr. Matar’s religious views, his nationality, and his history to prove an attempted murder charge, which is what we’re doing. According to the allegations, Mr. Matar allegedly stabbed Mr. Rushdie and allegedly stabbed Mr. Reese in an unprovoked attack. Therefore, I believe we can demonstrate that without going into details that might prejudice our jury.

Schmidt added:” From my standpoint, this is a localized event. It’s a stabbing event. It’s fairly straightforward. I don’t really feel the need to dig into motive evidence, regardless of whether it is or not, and what it consists of. I’d like to avoid all of that”.

Well, all right, but isn’t examination of motive ordinarily a staple of murder trials? There are many reasons for this, including the determination of the severity of the offense and the likelihood of future similar incidents. Barone, however, is only too happy to let Matar’s motives out of the trial because he wanted to screen witnesses for their anti-Islam views. They’ve explained that the reason this alleged crime was said to have occurred was because of this book involving Muslims, and everything else. So it’s kind of like the barn door’s been opened”, Barone said, and he wants that barn door closed.

&nbsp, &nbsp, Related: A Murder in Sweden Shows the Precarious State of Free Speech in Europe&nbsp,

All of this is happening just days after Salwan Momika, an Iraqi critic of Islam, was killed in Sweden for burning the Qur’an. Hadi Matar’s trial has incredibly significant implications for the future of the West’s freedom of speech and expression. Will Western nations support the right to free speech when it comes to Islam criticism, or will they give up? Salman Rushdie’s criticism of Islam led to the blinding of one eye by Hadi Matar, who later claimed that this was some unfathomable murder plot. Both attorneys now want to present this as an innocent victim of a murder plot. Hadi Matar was right to demand Rushdie be silenced, and now the attorneys are joining in the silencing process. &nbsp,

Instead, the Hadi Matar trial should serve as the starting point for a discussion in public about how the freedom of speech and Islam’s death penalty for blasphemy can be compatible, if at all. Instead, Schmidt and Barone have closed the door to any such discussion. One day, however, despite the West’s efforts to avoid it, this issue will be impossible to ignore. &nbsp,

Source credit