Morocco Is the Root Noureddine Boutahar

Moroccan identity runs deep—weathered, resilient, and not easily worn down. It rises from the stubborn contours of this land and the singular

temperament shaped by its mountains, deserts, and seas. Moroccans are not an offshoot of somewhere else, nor a cultural satellite orbiting East or West. Just as Japan belongs to its islands, China to its civilizational core, and the Arabs of the Peninsula to their own cradle, Morocco belongs first and foremost to itself. Its geography has forged a temperament that does not bend easily and does not trail behind others.

If someone feels a sentimental pull toward a homeland beyond our borders, that is their private affair. What they cannot do is project that longing onto an entire nation or dress ideological fantasies up as historical destiny.

One persistent myth—often driven by politics rather than scholarship—is the claim that Morocco must be “Arabized” to be authentically Muslim. That argument collapses under the slightest scrutiny. Islam is a universal faith, not an ethnic label. Iranians are Muslim but not Arab. Indonesians are Muslim but not Arab. Moroccans are proudly Muslim, but their faith does not erase their Amazigh roots, nor does it require them to trade their history for someone else’s. To portray Moroccans as latecomers or subordinates in their own land is less an argument than a bid to dilute a sovereignty that predates recorded memory.

The defense of Moroccan identity is not romantic rhetoric; it rests on hard evidence. Long before chronicles were penned, archaeology had already spoken. The discoveries at Jebel Irhoud revealed that some of the earliest Homo sapiens—over 300,000 years ago—walked this soil. Morocco is not a branch grafted onto a distant trunk; it is one of the oldest roots of humanity itself.

Even Ibn Khaldun, so often selectively quoted, dismissed the fanciful claims linking the Amazigh to Yemen or Himyar. He was unequivocal: such tales belonged to legend, not history.

Attempts to assign Moroccans an “external lineage” have come from opposite directions. Pan-Arab ideologues tried to fold Morocco wholesale into the East. European colonial powers, under “divide and rule,” floated theories of Northern European Amazigh origins to legitimize their presence. Different scripts, same objective: deny Morocco its own authorship.

We are not guests here. We are not late arrivals. No other nation is endlessly asked to justify its belonging; why should Morocco be? We claim no privilege and seek no quarrel, but we refuse to live in anyone’s shadow. Ours is a nation shaped by ancient kingdoms and far-reaching empires, not an echo chamber for borrowed voices.

Even in moments of sporting triumph and trial—like the recent African Cup—identity revealed itself plainly. In the end, a Moroccan stands first with his brother and on his own soil. This land breeds pride, fierce solidarity, and a work ethic that speaks for itself. As the poet Miskin al-Darimi warned centuries ago: “Your brother, your brother—for he who has no brother is like a man who charges into battle unarmed.”

The 3 Lies of Harvard Noureddine Boutahar

During my stay in Boston in 2004, I had the privilage of visiting Harvard
University—that towering beacon of learning—in the company of a group of distinguished professors and students from Boston University. It was there, in the heart of this esteemed institution that enshrines Veritas (Truth) as its sacred motto, that I chanced upon a deliciously ironic paradox, one the locals recount with a knowing smile.

Standing proudly in Harvard Yard is a magestic bronze statue said to represent John Harvard. Among students, however, it goes by a far less reverent moniker: the Statue of Three Lies. At first glance, the label seems almost heretical in America’s oldest university, a place that claims truth as its lodestar. But, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.

The First Lie: A Case of Mistaken Identity

The inscription confidently asserts that the statue portrays John Harvard himself. In truth, that’s a bit of a tall tale. When the sculptor Daniel Chester French began work in 1884, he quickly discovered that no authentic portraits of John Harvard existed; the man had died more than two centuries earlier. Faced with this void, French scraped together an escape by using a Harvard student of the time, Sherman Hoar, as his model—thus giving a fictional face to a very real benefactor.

The Second Lie: The Founder’s Myth

The pedestal also proclaims John Harvard as the university’s “Founder.” Historically, however, a different truth lies beneath the surface. Harvard was established by a formal vote of the Great and General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. John Harvard’s true claim to fame lies elsewhere: he was the institution’s first benevolent benefactor, donating half his estate and his entire library. The university bears his name as a tribute to his altruistic generosity, not as recognition of authorship.

The Third Lie: A Chronological Slip

Finally, the date 1638 is engraved as the year of Harvard’s founding. The records, however, are clear: the university was founded in 1636. The year 1638 marks John Harvard’s death and the execution of his bequest—not the birth of the institution itself.

Granting these narrative concessions, the statue remains a mandatory stop on any Harvard tour. Visitors and students alike line up to rub the statue’s left shoe for luck and for academic success. Decades of hopeful hands have polished the toe box of the shoe to a gleaming gold, creating a striking contrast with the rest of the bronze figure.

It is a scene that perfectly captures the uneasy marriage of academic dignity and popular myth. In the end, it reminds us that all that glitters is not gold—and that even at Harvard, a well-polished “lie” can grow into a beloved tradition.

Letters to “Teranga” — and to Those Who Hide Behind It

Noureddine Boutahar 

To the Senegal Head Coach:

Coach, do you rest easy after breaking faith with the oldest law of hospitality—bread and salt —and feeding it to disorder? What unfolded was not competitive intensity; it was a failure of command. Morocco did not train you so you could return as a conqueror, nor did it help build your career so you could trample the rules of the very house that once gave you shelter. You replaced the game’s intelligence with temper, turned the stands into a fog of noise, and used the touchline as a megaphone for agitation. The signal to your players was unmistakable: lose your composure and you might yet prevail. In that moment, you stopped leading and started lighting fires.

To the Senegalese Football Federation:

To the Federation, this is a rebuke equal to the disappointment you have caused. Rather than acting as a brake on excess and a guardian of standards, you chose to shield misconduct—sometimes through silence, other times through thin excuses that fooled no one. Where was the moral authority that sporting diplomacy demands? Where was the respect owed to millions watching and to thousands filling Moroccan stadiums? You squandered a long-standing legacy of fraternity—one forged well before the eras of Senghor and Abdou Diouf—and traded wisdom for obstinacy, restraint for bluster. By allowing recklessness to stain the Lions of Teranga jersey, once a symbol of continental dignity, you reduced it to evidence of institutional drift unworthy of Senegal’s standing. Worse still, this blow came not from an open rival, but from a partner we assumed had our back—only to discover, too late, a knife in it.

To the CAF Disciplinary Committee:

Your ruling was not balance; it was evasion. Placing victim and aggressor on the same footing is not justice—it is its distortion. Disorder was not punished; it was normalized. You issued the offender a clean bill of health and broadcast a corrosive lesson: raise your voice, bend the rules, and leniency will follow. In doing so, CAF drifted from the role of referee into that of fig leaf, blurring the line between order and chaos and confirming, once again, that African football struggles to clean its own house. As the old saying goes, a crooked yardstick never measures straight.

To Those Who Lie in Wait for Morocco’s Fall:

Your embrace of turmoil is not conviction; it is instinct. It is crab mentality at its rawest—if we cannot rise, no one should. Your effort to drag Morocco down is really an attempt to smash the mirror that exposes your own shortcomings. In the process, you hand the world fresh proof for its worst clichés about the continent and push African football another step closer to the edge. You are, quite simply, cutting off your nose to spite your face.

In closing, Morocco must remember that it is moving through a jungle, not strolling in a landscaped garden. Machiavelli’s advice remains as relevant as ever: be a fox to detect the traps, and a lion to keep the wolves at bay.