The distinction between writing history and spreading rumors and fabricating stories, is not that different from the distinction between truth and its opposite. Historic tales require documentation and evidence, usually attributed to witnesses who were still alive when these tales were registered. However, for history to be “written” forty years after a certain incident has occurred, especially if it is the size of the death of an Arab leader such as Gamal Abdel Nasser and without there being among the witnesses anyone still alive except for the person telling the story, the least that could be said about it is that it is not history! I believe that writer Mohamed Hassanein Heikal is aware of the difference between writing history and spreading rumors. Therefore, it came as a surprise to see him relating as part of “his life experience” what he said on Al-Jazeera channel about the circumstances surrounding the death of Abdel Nasser and the doubts surrounding the role of President Al-Sadat in killing the man by putting poison in a cup of coffee he prepared for him. Heikal said that Al-Sadat told Abdel Nasser: “Mr. President, you could use a cup of coffee and I will personally make it for you,” continuing: “Al-Sadat prepared the coffee himself and carried it in person before my eyes. Abdel Nasser then drank it.” As for the people who witnessed Heikal's story, they were Heikal himself, Abdel Nasser, Al-Sadat, Yasser Arafat and Muhammad Daoud, who was responsible for preparing Abdel Nasser's meal – and the latter four have all passed away. What is even more surprising is that Heikal is not a neutral side in his talk about Anwar al-Sadat. Indeed, there is a personal rivalry and a political rivalry between the two men, which strips Heikal of the quality of historical integrity when talking about the former Egyptian president. At this point, we will not assess the reconciliation policy adopted by Al-Sadat with Israel and over which Heikal - among others - has many remarks, considering that in his book “Autumn of Fury” Heikal was able to pour all his fury on Al-Sadat. However, this is the first time, as far as I recall, that he publicly relates his story about the circumstances surrounding the death of Abdel Nasser in public, although he never fell short of writing articles, publishing books and achieving a newly-found television stardom. So, what might have pushed him to leave such a “scoop” to be detonated on the fortieth anniversary of Abdel Nasser's death? Is the close relationship that used to exist between Heikal and Abdel Nasser not worth raising his suspicions about the circumstances surrounding the death of the late president when those who witnessed this incident were still alive? What if Heikal was not present among us today, may Allah give him a long life? Would this have deprived us of the opportunity to learn about a historic “truth” of such high caliber!? Some say that the media platform provided to Heikal by the Qatari channel, imposes on him a weekly creativity going in line with the massive financial budget allocated by the channel for his show – or so it is said. It is in this context that the latter placed the media “sensation” which Heikal volunteered to reveal during the last show, in an attempt to raise the show's morale along with the viewership rates. However, the question continues to revolve around whether or not such a justification is sufficient to make Heikal slip toward a story of this size in Egypt's modern history, without offering any proof except for his own testimony. This is especially true since the Egyptian judiciary has previously issued a sentence over similar charges made by Abdel Nasser's daughter, Mrs. Hoda, thus saying that her claims lacked the necessary proof and ordering her to pay a fine.
