HR34

Federal and state laws are already established and hold the highest authority in the US and in New Hampshire. This bill doesn't accomplish anything other than stoke prejudice against people who practice Islam.

I oppose this bill entirely because of several, well-founded reasons: o Many religious belief systems have ideas that are inconsistent with US law. HR 34 is singling out one religious community. o There is no evidence of Sharia enforcement in U.S. states. The allegations are exaggerated. o Existing practices fall well within constitutional protections for religious freedom. o Muslims in NH follow the law of the land. o Language used in the resolution will create a negative view of the Muslim community. It is entirely inaccurate that Muslims and their religion create more harm, distress, and trouble for the US community. Muslims are important and valued citizens and they belong here. I urge you to not make rash decisions, based on untruths and false accusations, that will limit religious freedoms in America, and in return — cause unjust harm upon one particular religious group. Muslims already have to manage a tremendous amount of hatred and backlash for their religion and their religious apprearance. Let’s make decisions to keep our citizens safe — meaning Muslim people who are our valued citizens.

This bill is full of falsehoods and is patently bigoted against one of the great Abrahamic religions practiced by over 2 billion people worldwide (Pew Research Center). It is the second largest religion in the world. Islam, as all major religions do, varies in practice depending on the native culture in any area. It also is a dynamic religion with 5 major schools of thought that is constantly adjusting Quranic interpretations to ever evolving social and cultural norms - just as Christianity and Judaism and every other religion must. The basis for this bill is out and out bigotry. Those that have sponsored it should be ashamed of themselves and deserve censure.

Many religious belief systems have ideas that are inconsistent with US law. HR 34 is singling out one religious community. Language used in the resolution will create a negative view of the Muslim community. There is no evidence of Sharia enforcement in U.S. states. The allegations are exaggerated.

Language used in the resolution will create a negative view of the Muslim community. There is no evidence of Sharia enforcement in U.S. states; the allegations are exaggerated.

Blatantly unconstitutional... the prime sponsor is the same Rep who tried to add a Holocaust denier to the bill to extend the Holocaust Commission and he got quite a smackdown from the Speaker who reminded us that hatred has no place in the NH Legislature. The cruelty of the sponsors of this resolution is just astonishing.

I am a resident of NH and have lived in my New England my entire life. I will not be fooled by blatant Islamophobia and attempts to stoke fear of Brown people and one the largest religions in the world. Islam has been in the United States since this country’s founding (brought over by enslaved Africans). Since then, white Christian organizations have been responsible for far more acts of domestic terror than any domestic Islamic group. I am not afraid of Muslims and Brown people; they are an essential part of my community and individuals I have real relationships with. I am afraid of the powerful people who would like to divide me from my community on the basis of race and immigrant status. It’s a familiar tactic but nonetheless pathetic.

I’m here to speak against House Resolution 34 as a concerned citizen and student of UNH, and a part of the smal minority of Muslims The United States is not a Christian country., nor a Jewish, and doesn’t not have a religion of state. I’d like to quickly address rep Bennett as someone knowledgeable in the Quran. “O you who believe, fulfill your contracts.” Qur’an 5:1 Our founding fathers founded the United States because of religious persecution in Europe. The first pilgrims to come to the us was due to persecution of religion. HR34 names one religion and its religious tradition and declares it an “existential threat.” That is not neutrality. That is government condemnation of a faith. Why doesn’t it also state Jewish, Hindu, and Christian religions? What the resolution fails to point out is that sharia law states a Muslim must obide by the laws of the land they live in, and there is no sharia law anywhere in the world as sharia requires governance under on ruler, a khalifa- the last sharia by this definition was more than 100 year’s ago No other religion is named. No other belief system is declared a threat. That selective targeting is what turns this from policy into prejudice. -declaring all Muslims as terrorists or potential threats this resolution does not fix a gap in law. It creates a narrative — that Muslims are a threat. Calling a religious tradition an “existential threat” does real damage: • It tells Muslim residents they are suspect. • It legitimizes discrimination. • It chills religious freedom. • It encourages unequal treatment by government institutions. Even if this resolution has no direct enforcement mechanism, government speech still has power. Words from the State shape: • how agencies act, • how communities treat each other, • who feels protected — and who feels targeted. New Hampshire and the United States were founded on: • religious liberty, • government neutrality, • equal protection under the law. Government does not get to decide: • which religions are acceptable, • which belief systems are dangerous, • which communities deserve suspicion. We protect freedom by applying the law equally, not by singling out minorities. This resolution does not protect New Hampshire. It divides it. It does not strengthen the Constitution — it contradicts its core promise of religious neutrality. We can defend the rule of law without declaring an entire faith a threat. I urge you to reject HR34 and choose principles over prejudice

This is nothing short of irrational hysteria. I see NO evidence that Sharia law is seeping into the Granite State and "political Islam" is a meaningless, ambiguous phrase that the bill leaves completely undefined (are we also going to decry "political Christianity"? or target other religions that are viewed as "dangerous" in some fashion? Seems like an extremely slippery slope to me). The bill is redundant in "prohibiting" "deference to Sharia law by a government institution" - if we simply maintain our Constitution and existing principle of Separation of Church and State, there will be no need to fear-monger about take overs by religious extremism. If there is concern about erosions of Constitutional protections, those need to be addressed directly, not via paranoid singling out of a minority within a minority (in other words: take note that not all Muslims embrace Sharia law).

This bill is overtly racist. I fully reject this bill due to it impications that racism is allowable by law. Dr. Rev, Patience Stoddard

February 6, 2026 HR34 in New Hampshire 1. Redundancy and Lack of Evidence The Constitution is already Supreme: The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) of the U.S. Constitution already ensures that no foreign or religious law can override federal or state laws. Existing Legal Safeguards: Courts already have the power to reject any foreign law or religious contract that violates "public policy" or fundamental rights. There is no evidence of "Sharia enforcement" in New Hampshire or any other state. 2. Violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause: By singling out one specific religion (Islam) for condemnation, the resolution may violate the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from favoring or disfavoring any particular faith. Free Exercise Clause: Banning the recognition of religious principles could infringe on the rights of individuals to enter into private, voluntary agreements—such as marriage contracts, wills, or business deals—that reflect their deeply held beliefs. 3. Discriminatory and Harmful Messaging Promotes Islamophobia: Civil rights groups like ACLU and CAIR argue that these resolutions are often "solutions in search of a problem" that serve only to marginalize and stigmatize Muslim American communities. Undermines Judicial Independence: Telling state courts which types of law they can and cannot consider interferes with the judiciary’s role in evaluating each case on its individual merits. 4. Economic and Practical Concerns Impact on International Business: Broadly banning "foreign laws" can create legal uncertainty for New Hampshire businesses that engage in international trade, as many contracts include provisions for handling disputes based on the laws of other countries. Interference with Family Law: Such bans can complicate international adoptions, marriages performed abroad, and standard religious arbitration that is common in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim communities alike. 5. New Hampshire Specific Protections Strong State Religious Protections: The New Hampshire Constitution (Part I, Article 5) provides even stronger protections for religious "free exercise" than the federal First Amendment. HR34 could be seen as a direct contradiction to New Hampshire’s "Live Free or Die" spirit.

Homophobia is unnecessary and counterproductive.

This is a waste of time about some made-up fear. It smacks of Islamophobia and will do nothing to better life in NH. Please vote ITL and move on to dealing with important issues. Thank you.

With close to 1400 bills to review I am shocked that one so irrelevant to the actual safety and well being of our dear Granite State would be given your time and attention. I read the bill description - I find it factually in error and cruel in intent.

The blatant discrimination embodied in this bill has no place in New Hampshire or anywhere else that pretends to be civilized. Where is the outrage over Jews' following Halakhah? Or Roman Catholics following Canon Law? Every religion has a set of rules and practices, yet only Muslims are singled out. The bill is nothing but the latest expression of religious discrimination. We deserve better than such exercises. Please defeat HR34.

I am deeply opposed to HR 34. Having lived in West Africa, in countries with significant and sometimes majority Muslim populations, I recognize this as the dog whistle it is here in the U.S.. There is no evidence of Sharia law ever being enforced in U.S. states, and existing religious practices fall within constitutional protections for religious freedom. The language used in HR 34 stigmatizes and discredits our Muslim communities, the last thing we need given the hateful rhetoric and divisiveness promoted by the Trump administration. I urge you to oppose HR34.

As a Jew, as a rabbi, and as an American, I find this legislation reprehensible and a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. Most observant Muslims around the world are peace-loving people who are just going about their daily lives. The pose no harm to their neighbors, let alone to Western Civilization. The people who proposed this legislation should get to know more Muslims who observe Sharia law to see how wrong they are about their fellow Americans.

In this country, we are free to practise the religious beliefs that we choose. We do not dictate or qualify those beliefs for others. This bill would violate that religious freedom and would unfairly single out one particular group. I oppose it.

This bill is both a foolish waste of time and deeply offensive. Please vote it down. People have a right to practice their religion. This bill demonizes a particular faith group and is also unconstitutionally vague. If it were to pass it would be unconstitutional under both the NH and federal constitutions, humiliating for NH and a slap in the State's Muslim residents. There would be an expensive lawsuit almost immediately and NH would lose. It is also just a stupid bill. There is already no establishment of religion in the United States, and nothing more is needed. "Sharia law" is not enforced in NH or anywhere else in the United States. Only state and federal law are actually enforceable law. Sharia law in the United States is nothing more than the rules by which muslims may chose to live their lives. Aspects of sharia law inconsistent with existing US or NH law (such as polygamy for example) are already prohibited. This is true for all religions. This bill is a waste of time and should be voted down.

This bill is silly. It does not address anything that is happening or going to happen in NH. All passing this bill would do is cause people to fear the few Muslims living in the State.

I am a retired professor who specialized in the study of Islam in Africa and the Middle East. I am neither Muslim nor Arab. People in NH are not in danger of sharia law being imposed on them. Muslims are a small minority in NH. This bill is simply Islamophobic and will make Muslims in NH feel bad. To forbid discussion of sharia denies freedom of religion, speech, and open discourse which is healthy for people of all religious views.

This is another solution in search of a problem that vilifies members of our community unfairly.

The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits this bill.