At a press conference, a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry stated that Iran would not entertain the notion of judging or condemning anyone beyond Salman Rushdie and his supporters. The remark underscored a stance that places responsibility on those who publicly criticized or provoked by the author rather than on any external party. The official message marked Iran’s first formal response since the reported knife attack in New York against Rushdie, the author of The Satanic Verses. The incident left him in a grave condition, with the possibility of severe organ damage and the potential loss of a liver, kidney, or eye depending on the evolution of his condition. The update highlighted the gravity of the attack and the ongoing medical assessment in a hospital setting.
The spokesperson emphasized that Rushdie acted in a way that sparked widespread anger by his portrayal of religious beliefs, a response that, in the view presented, resonated across more than a billion followers of Islam. He asserted that Rushdie’s actions had provoked intense public reaction, specifically mentioning the offense to Islamic faith and to billions of believers worldwide. The statement did not revisit the debates surrounding earlier controversial statements but focused on the immediate repercussions of the recent incident and the perceived provocations that preceded it.
In addressing the attack, the spokesman refrained from drawing lines of affiliation to the assailant, who has been identified as a young man with origins in the United States but with ties to Lebanon in some accounts. The Iranian side maintained that there were no official Iranian connections to the individual or to the attack, signaling a deliberate attempt to separate state responsibility from personal actions. The language used included a firm denial of any linkage between the attacker and the Iranian government or its institutions.
The spokesperson asserted unequivocally that Iran bears no responsibility for the violence and urged others not to assign blame to the state. The comment reinforced a broader call to prevent the spread of blame and to focus on peaceful discourse rather than retaliatory rhetoric.
Further remarks touched upon the broader issue of freedom of expression, with a caution against permitting insults toward sacred beliefs to be justified simply under the banner of free speech. The official voice argued that expression has limits when it encroaches upon the reverence and sacred values of any faith. There was a clear appeal for a fair and balanced application of freedom of expression, one that respects the integrity of religious traditions while still allowing dialogue within a respectful framework.
The dialogue touched on the continuing tensions surrounding the novel, noting the historical context in which the work had stirred significant controversy across several Muslim-majority communities. The description indicated that the work’s content has long been a flashpoint for debates about religious respect, blasphemy, and the appropriate boundaries of artistic and literary expression. The narrative acknowledged that this controversy has repeatedly led to official statements and public debates across different regions.
Historical references were made to the fatwa issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini after the book’s publication, which called for Rushdie to be assassinated and led to the author living under restricted security conditions for years. The account noted that in the following decades, leadership within Iran presented a more nuanced stance at different times. One former Iranian president publicly distanced the state from the fatwa during the 1990s, asserting that the government did not pursue Rushdie’s death. Yet, subsequent remarks from Iran’s supreme leadership later reaffirmed the decree, stating that the original call remained in force. The cycle of statements highlighted the persistence of the issue in official discourse and its impact on the public perception of state positions and religious sensitivities.
The evolving dialogue within Iran’s political leadership emphasized a consistent message: while individual expressions can provoke strong reactions, the state maintains a line that the fatwa is not subject to reversal. The chronology illustrated how different actors within the country have approached the matter over time, balancing internal debates with external scrutiny. It also underscored the enduring tension between artistic freedom, religious reverence, and the expectations of diverse audiences around the world.