Naguib Mahfouz, again. "Mahfouz was capable of taking a firm stand at the risk of his popularity. He criticized Nasser at a time when the statesman received wide support not only in Egypt but also throughout the Middle East and North Africa." Laila Lalami is quite wrong here. Mahfouz never took a firm stand on anything, and he wavered and equivocated on every issue. He would say one positive thing about Sadat one day, and the next day he would express support for the Palestinians. He hated to offend and that explained his cowardly position when he refused that his book, Awlad Hartina, be published without the official sanction of Al-Azhar, and even asked an Islamist, Kamal Abu-l-Majd, to write the introduction to the first Egyptian edition of the book. And when did Mahfouz criticize Nasser? He in fact always praised him in the press, and certainly only offered praise for him when he was alive. And in Jamal Ghitani's book of interviews with Mahfouz, he asked him about the clear discrepancy between Mahfouz novels and his press interviews. Mahfouz told him to ignore all the press interviews that Mahfous has given. He basically was admitting that he does not say what he believes. And let us remember that Mahfouz (and Lalami mentions that) worked as an official censor. Is there a worse role for a writer than a censor for an oppressive state?