You're welcome.
When asked what he’d do if he saw Rushdie in a restaurant, Stevens says he might just go on eating his meal. He makes no mention of any other response.
If you go back and listen again, Islam doesn't finish his original train of thought. I quote:
Islam: It depends upon my mood that evening. I may concentrate more on my meal or I may concentrate on... I can't answer that really clearly.
Host: You don't think that this man deserves to die?
Islam: Who? Salmon Rushdie? Yes, yes.
Host: And do you have a duty to be his executioner?
Islam: Ummm... Not necessarilly, unless we were in an islamic state and I was ordered to by the judge or by the authority to carry out such an act, perhaps, yes.
In islamic states, isn't an 'authority' also an imam or ayatollah? (The Pillars of the Mullahs' Rule)
When further asked if he has a duty to execute Rushdie, Stevens says “no not necessarily, unless we [Rushdie and Stevens] were in an Islamic State and I was ordered, say by a judge or the authorities, to carry out such an act, [then] yes, perhaps”
Not 'authorities', which implies government bodies, but 'authority', which can mean an individual such as an imam or ayatollah. (IMO, it sounds like he's dancing around the truth).
If you told me you thought someone deserves to die but that you wouldn’t kill him unless, say, you were ordered to do so by a judge, and even then you couldn’t say for sure whether you’d do it, and in the meantime you’ll ignore him if you cross paths, I wouldn’t think that makes you a terrorist.
Islam didn't say he would 'ignore' him unless he was in more of mood to concentrate on his meal. And I never said, nor did I imply that he was a terrorist.
“I never said, nor did I imply that he was a terrorist.”
Quite right. My bad.