Justice & Morality in The Thief and the Dogs

What questions regarding morality and justice does Mahfouz raise in his novel through his characterization of Said?

The main motivations of the plot in The Thief and the Dogs revolve around ideas of justice and of doing what is right. The story opens with Said being released from prison, immediately exposing his character's morality to questioning. In the same breath, Mahfouz uses indirect interior monologue to inform the audience of the betrayal in Said's past, as we see in "when those who had betrayed him would despair unto death, when treachery would pay for what it had done." This opening characterization of Said establishes a fluid moral tone for the rest of the novel. The basis of this changing morality is the difficult decision imposed on the reader of isolating Said as a 'hero' or 'villain'. 

The questions of morality are mainly challenging the righteousness of Said. By delivering the novel through his eyes, Mahfouz presents us with an account of world view tainted by a thirst for revenge. This is especially evident through the heavy use of stream of consciousness narration, which gives us only one pair of eyes with which to see the world. The reader falls into Said's 'trap', believing that his killings are necessary after sympathizing with him through his characterization (e.g. the meeting with Sana in chapter 1). In doing so the reader is challenged to use their own moral compass in navigating the novel. 

This is supported within the text through Sheikh Ali Al Junaydi. He is Said's main source of wisdom, and from the outset encourages him to "wash yourself now and read (the Quran)". The inclusion of this character pushes the reader toward a view of Said as immoral, since he has all the answers to his problems (acceptance, letting go etc.) in front of him but chose the violent route instead.    

Another significant point to consider is the context of the novel - 4 years after the 1952 Egyptian Revolution. Like most historical events in real life, there is no clear 'hero' or 'villain' in that story. Nasser's reign, like Said's morality, is highly contested. While the president may have improved the rights of the working class and established a strong connection with them, there was also rampant censorship and favoritism in achieving positions of power (corruption?). These cases echo each other, since the subjects are making their ends justify their means. We see a number of questions raised here: Can Said kill Ilish, Rauf, and Nabawiyya with a clear conscience since it is to fulfill the goals of justice? Can an immoral action be justified if it supports a moral goal?  In all, it is the ability of these questions to be extrapolated into bigger ethical issues that engages and provokes the reader.