During the novel, Mahfouz poses several questions regarding morality and justice. Firstly, he has us question whether Said is a hero that works for the purpose of justice in the novel. While Said’s internal monologue narration reflects how he views himself as a facilitator of justice, his actions simply cannot be justified for this reason. He has committed treacherous crimes including theft and murder; however, he does so at the advancement of his own agenda of revenge. He does not consider punishing anyone who has not wronged him. He is set on a personal vendetta rather than a fight for idealism. In fact he lets go of his own ideology of refusing to become wealthy and the expense of others and asks Rauf for a job in the newspaper. He does not revert back to his warped sense of justice until he is rejected, and attempts to thieve from his former friend. It is almost as if he is exploiting the name of justice in order to be able to cope with the crippling twists of fate that surround him. He also quenches his guilty conscience by claiming that he is only committing rightful acts. He justifies the murder of the tenant in Ilish’s house to himself, for his own mental sanity, as an unjust act and almost distances himself from the scene in order to appear as the objective, all knowing judge. Although he felt pangs of guilt before he discovered he murdered his unintended target, he was able to live with himself since he believed Ilish severely betrayed him. After he received the news, we see a shift in narration from remorse to an unaffected demeanor. Ultimately, Mahfouz has us question Said’s morality. He makes it very difficult for the reader to acknowledge Said’s depravity since we are so exposed to his inner thoughts and struggles that we begin to make excuses for his actions as well.