In The Thief and the Dogs, Sheikh Al- Junaydi represents the missed opportunities that Said could have optimized on to follow a different lifestyle after getting released from jail. Said’s decision to not follow the Sheikh’s advice leads to his eventual downfall and this recurring topic of his misjudgment and bad decisions incites a debate of fate vs. free will. The Sheikh represents spiritual freedom and therefore pure, clear thinking which should lead to a better life. Therefore the Sheikh is symbolic of a path to redemption while Said represents the path to destruction. The Sheikh is extremely significant in the novel as he provides an alternate perspective of Egypt for the reader different to how they would normally see it through the eyes of Mahran as a broken and unjust society where thieves and prostitutes control the streets, as a place that does not allow redemption. The very fact that the Sheikh has disciples and Said chooses not to stay at the house is enough to say that Said made the decisions based on his free will which eventually led to his downfall or his fate.
Sheikh Al-Junaydi constantly warns Mahran that vengeance is not worth seeking for and therefore contributes to the theme of how revenge leads to the eventual downfall of the protagonist. In chapter 2 of the novel, Said is constantly told to go “wash and read” to which he only responds by blaming everyone around him. By that the Sheikh would have wanted Said to become purified, forget the past and immerse himself in religion to find peace and lead a better way of life. Only on the second read, will readers understand that Said was given these opportunities to redeem himself but he just brushed them off with his excuses. A common trend within the novel is that Said justifies his decisions by blaming his circumstances. Towards the end of the chapter he reveals that he is on a trajectory that approaches hell rather than heaven. This means that Said had already accepted his fate as a criminal and had no intentions of saving himself. Through this indirect characterization of Said, we realize how Mahfouz brings in the Sheikh to counter Said’s pessimistic attitude and acts as a buffer on how much we sympathize with him. Nothing was stopping Said to lead a life like his father did, but he was too proud of his ‘talent’ in burglary.
The next major point in the text where the Sheikh is re-introduced is in chapter 8 when Said falls to sleep in the Sheikh’s house and dreams about being chased by Rauf Ilwan and other pursuers and slipping into a gathering of Sufi chanters around the Sheikh. But suddenly a comfort zone changed into enemy territory as the Sheikh asked for his identity card as per instructions from the government. Through this part of the novel we can see how Said is against authoritative powers such as the government and certainly against Rauf Ilwan. This also characterizes Said as a revolutionist who has strong moral values. But does that mean he is a hero under Mahfouz’s definition? Towards the end of the chapter, the realization that he killed an innocent man hit Said and he yells at the Sheikh and says “Farewell, master”. From this the readers get the feeling that Said knows that his tragic death is nearing him, but the Sheikh still gives hope by remonstrating what Said says as “until we meet again”.
In chapter 10, as readers, we gain valuable insight that Said left his books at the Sheikh’s house and this might provide a temporary ray of hope that Said is not going die a tragic death. ‘You can take the horse to the water but you can’t make it drink.’ Mahfouz probably integrated this into the text to signify that Said created his own tragic fate as even though he did not have the books he still tried to murder Rauf Ilwan. Therefore, it might have not been the books or the society that led him to do what he did but it was his own wrong doings and free will decisions that led to his downfall.
