Between the Pulpit and Citizenship: When Does Questioning Become 'Disturbance' to the Nation?

A sermon delivered on August 7, 2026, in Morocco sparked debate by questioning the boundaries of free expression and national security. The sermon stated that "it is not permissible to disturb the psychological, spiritual, and intellectual security of the nation under the pretext of freedom of expression, or under the pretext of change for the better, unless it is in accordance with what the nation has agreed upon."

The article argues that while the sermon's stated aims of stability and preventing discord are legitimate, the concepts used to achieve them are problematic. It raises questions about who defines "disturbance" and "national security," and whether all calls for change are threats to stability. The piece probes the definition of "the nation" whose consensus is required for change.

It further explores how the concern for national security can shift from protecting society to protecting the state from its citizens. The article references Morocco's post-2003 policy of stricter religious discourse regulation to combat extremism, noting that while this is understandable, the expansion to include vague concepts like "intellectual security" and "psychological security" without clear definitions is concerning.

The author questions whether a journalist exposing mismanagement, a researcher criticizing policy, an artist reflecting social issues, or a citizen protesting economic hardship is disturbing national security or exercising their right to expression. The piece concludes by asking when the desire for security becomes a tool to silence questions and restrict criticism, and when stability is used to redefine citizenship as mere silence and compliance.