Nabil Barkallah

Remote Testimony in Opposition Chair and Members of the Committee, Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony in opposition to this resolution. My opposition is grounded in concerns about factual accuracy, constitutional principles, and the real-world safety consequences that may arise from the passage of language that characterizes an entire faith tradition or its adherents as an inherent threat. First, several assertions in the resolution present disputed or misleading claims as settled fact. Islamic law, often referred to as Sharia, is not a single, uniform legal code or political system. In academic and legal scholarship, it is better understood as a broad and diverse body of ethical and religious guidance interpreted in many different ways across cultures and centuries. The overwhelming majority of Muslims in the United States practice their faith as a personal and spiritual matter within the framework of U.S. constitutional law. Portraying this complex religious tradition as a monolithic political project is not supported by consensus scholarship. Second, the resolution suggests that certain harmful cultural practices or extremist actions are inherent to Islam itself. This conflates criminal or cultural behaviors—which are condemned by Muslim scholars and organizations worldwide—with mainstream religious belief. Such conflation risks misunderstanding the distinction between religion, culture, and criminal conduct, which is essential for sound policymaking. Third, references to “Sharia enforcement” within U.S. states are inaccurate. No state or locality in the United States enforces religious law as government law. Like many faith communities, some Muslims may participate in voluntary private religious arbitration for civil matters such as marriage or contracts, similar to Jewish beth din or Christian mediation. These processes operate only within, and are fully subordinate to, U.S. constitutional and statutory law. They do not replace or override American courts. Beyond questions of accuracy, there are broader concerns about the public safety implications of passing resolutions that single out a religious group as an existential threat. Language of this nature can unintentionally increase fear, misunderstanding, and social division. When government statements appear to assign collective suspicion to a community, it can contribute to harassment, discrimination, or even violence directed at ordinary residents who have no connection to extremism or wrongdoing. This risk affects not only Muslims but also the wider public, because social polarization and mistrust can undermine cooperation with law enforcement, weaken community relationships, and make all residents less safe. New Hampshire—and the United States as a whole—has long benefited from principles of religious freedom, equal protection under the law, and evidence-based policymaking. Existing federal and state laws already prohibit the establishment of any religious legal system as government authority, and they already criminalize violence, coercion, and discrimination regardless of religious justification. Passing a resolution that rests on disputed claims does not add new legal protections, but it does carry the potential to stigmatize neighbors, increase social tension, and divert attention from practical, inclusive approaches to public safety. For these reasons—factual, constitutional, and community-safety related—I respectfully urge the committee to oppose this resolution and instead continue to uphold policies that protect both religious freedom and public safety for all residents, without singling out any faith or community. Thank you for your time and consideration.