The Sheik

The Sheik is one of the most relevant characters of The thief and the Dogs. He is a symbol of redemption, as religious figures tend to be. And no he is not directly related to the church, but he is religious. The light that reveals Said character, dispute what Said thinks there is a rift between thoughts and interactions. And finally, ritualistic failing of the internal struggle between his perceived fate and free will.
His symbolism as redemption is clear from the start. Religion is traditionally painted as the great redeemer. Brothers and sisters repent your sins and have the evil washed off you in their acceptance and forgiveness of god, or ala, or Buda, or what have you. Halt your sins and ask for redemption, and the past is forgotten. It seems, that in a world where friend, mentor, and love all betray, redemption and acceptance are the one thing he needs. The Sheik offers nothing but wisdom and guidance to our hero lead astray. Well that as well as a bite to eat, and a roof to sleep under. But the abstract way he offered his advice and his forgiveness was beyond Said ability to see.
The Sheik, as mentioned before, brings some light into the question of Said Mahran. The Sheik, on numerous occasions, assists characterize Said in a more reliable way then Said does himself. From Said, we learn that he is the embodiment of the fair, the righteous, the vengeful, the great, and the infallible hero of the masses. By any definition a great man. Of course, we also learn from his untimely demise that he is delusional. So what do we make for our great hero? How do we know who he really is? The answer lies in characters like the Sheik. He as well as Nur, Illish, and Rauf give us our knowledge of Said, or that is the only knowledge to be trusted.  The Sheik gave wisdom and sympathy. Said seemed to acknowledge either. This allows us to see he is hot-headed and just a little thick. He is also stubborn and insensitive. This is revealed through his intolerance for things like prayer, even out of respect for the man who houses him, he refuses these things that seem unnecessary to him. He is of course progressive, wanted something more just, but his is cold and confrontational, not a comforting figure. All of this is revealed through the interactions Said has with the Sheik. And his mannerisms give us our insight into the theme of fate versus free will.
The fate versus free will is one theme thoroughly seen throughout. Now I readily admit to bias, I honestly believe the words spoken by Ben Franklin are true. He said “There are only two things that are certain, death and taxes”. So my thoughts on fate are skewed. But I believe that there is always a choice. Always an alternative for every decision. And each one creates even more alternatives, and the resulting chaos is the thing we call life. That is to say, every man women and child does have control over their destiny, their fate. Whatever they want to achieve is achievable, as long as they are willing to bid their time and be smart about it. In this way, a person can act in a singular way, to a singular goal. And this is where Said fails. His mind is made up from the moment he walks out of prison. Not only on his end goals but on his methods. Acting upon this, he led himself to the gallows. So my view is, there was never any set fate for the Egyptian Robin Hood. He decided his path and his goals and died by them. His fate was to follow his will to the letter. As was the fate of the other characters he fought with. And so he sealed his fate and lost the chance be live and die happy.