Heated testimony as committee hears HR 34 resolution on Sharia law

The State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee heard hours of divided testimony on HR 34 on Feb. 6, a house resolution introduced by Representative de Schweniere that says "Sharia law and political Islam represent an existential threat" and calls for prohibiting government deference to Sharia.

Representative de Schweniere, introducing the resolution, cited examples of informal arbitration panels described in the measure and told the committee the resolution aligns with federal efforts to bar official deference to foreign religious law. "This resolution has been filed in solidarity with those efforts across the pond," the sponsor said.

Public comment filled much of the hearing record. Supporters described personal experience in majority‑Muslim countries and warned of illiberal legal practices. "Sharia law does not reflect the philosophy of 'render unto Caesar'," a witness said, citing examples abroad.

Opponents — including faith leaders, civil‑liberties advocates and Muslim New Hampshire residents — argued the resolution singles out one religion, duplicates constitutional protections and elevates unverified claims. Lisa Beaudoin, executive director of the New Hampshire Council of Churches, told the committee written testimony that the council opposed HR 34 and warned the resolution "makes broad alarming allegations about Islam and Muslim communities, including claims ... presented without citations." She recommended the committee reject what she described as "thinly veiled discriminatory attacks."

Multiple Muslim residents testified that Sharia, as they practice it, guides private religious life and that U.S. law (including the Supremacy Clause) already prevents any religious or foreign law from overriding constitutional protections. "Sharia ... is a guide," one witness said. "Muslims in New Hampshire are law‑abiding citizens and deserve equal protection under the law."

The committee did not take a vote. The chair said the volume of testimony and competing claims required additional review; HR 34 was recessed and will return to committee at a later date with staff follow‑up requested on several factual assertions in the resolution.

What happens next: The committee will verify factual claims cited in the resolution, review written testimony, and schedule HR 34 for further consideration. The committee advised submitting written testimony if speakers could not be heard in person.