A halal mark should explain the rules behind the approval
For food producers and consumers, independent halal certification is essential to ensure that meat products meet strict religious standards and operational integrity. Without transparent governance, clear certification standards, and public accountability, stakeholders cannot verify whether an organization's claims are independently monitored or consistently applied.
Ben-issa LLC, operating as Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions, is a Colorado-based company offering halal harvesting and certification services. While the organization provides on-site audits and issues certification documents, critical components such as accredited oversight, detailed public standards, and independent governance remain publicly unverified.
Who Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions is
Ben-issa LLC is a registered Limited Liability Company in Colorado, with its principal address in Fort Collins and operations in Severance [1] [2]. The business operates under the name Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions and is owned by Malik Issa (Abdelmalik Issa), who serves as the registered agent [1] [2]. The company offers onsite halal harvesting performed to Islamic standards, including a swift cut by a Muslim operator, invoking the name of God, and full bleed-out, alongside complete USDA coordination [3] [4].
The organization states that its certified products are distributed through meat processing facilities across the East Coast and Midwest [3]. However, there is no public evidence of a formal governance board, an independent Islamic scholar board, or a documented halal decision framework [3] [5]. Specific personnel qualifications, appointments, and role assignments for its practicing halal operators are not publicly established [4].
Halal Industry Exposé · Comprehensive Accountability Assessment
Ben-issa LLC, operating as Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions Organizational accountability and public certification-criteria disclosure: 18% Credibility Score · Grade F · Insufficiently substantiated
Moderate confidence. Ben-issa LLC, operating as Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions receives a Credibility Score of 18%, Grade F, under methodology 3.0. The result is calculated from 137 requirement-level findings across twelve metrics, with exact-entity accreditation credited only where its governing standard expressly assesses the requirement and public disclosure scored separately.
This organizational accountability assessment measures evidence supporting identity, control, responsible people, Islamic authority, halal-specific work, standards, public certification criteria, certificate controls, correction access, and demonstrated operations. Each of 137 enumerated subrequirements is shown below. A not-verified finding means the reviewed record did not establish the item; it is not proof that the control does not exist, that wrongdoing occurred, or that every certificate is invalid. Private evidence is described only at a non-identifying level. The existing series label is editorial branding and is not itself an allegation. Flags explain evidence already scored inside the twelve fixed metrics and create no separate bonus or penalty. The assessment is not a religious ruling, legal judgment, fraud finding, guarantee, or declaration that every certificate is valid or invalid. An undisclosed item is not treated as proof that no internal control exists.
Halal Certification Body Accountability Assessment version 3.0. Source cutoff September 15, 2026. Last reviewed September 15, 2026. Raw Credibility Score 18.2364 out of 100, ordinarily displayed as 18%.
Trust overview
Green flags and red flags
These flags explain evidence already scored inside the twelve fixed metrics. They do not create separate bonus or penalty points.
Green flags
Red flags
Missing Governance Transparency
No broader governance or independent certification authority structure is publicly documented.
Metrics: #3, #5
Score treatment: Score reduced due to lack of verified accountable leadership and religious authority.
Boundary: Publicly available information only; internal structures may exist but are unverified.
Lack of Public Standards and Traceability
No coherent public certification criteria, certificate directory, or mark-control procedure was located.
Metrics: #8, #9, #10
Score treatment: Score reduced due to insufficient public transparency and traceability.
Boundary: Based on the organization's public website.
Sources: [3]
How USDHS calculates the Credibility Score
Every applicable subrequirement is fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded only when genuinely not applicable. Each metric is 60 percent control assurance, 25 percent operational evidence, and 15 percent public evidence. Current independent exact-entity accreditation receives full credit only for requirements its governing standard expressly assesses within scope; public credit remains separate unless publication is expressly required and the route works. Classification bands: A, 90 to 100, strongly substantiated; B, 80 to 89, substantiated; C, 70 to 79, partially substantiated; D, 60 to 69, material gaps; F, 0 to 59, insufficiently substantiated.
Part 2
Numbered assessment metrics
1. Legal identity and standing
8 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
82.50% of this metric; 4.1250 of 5 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 88 percent evidence factor; 2.63 points. 3 fulfilled, 1 partial across 4 applicable control assurance requirements.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 75 percent evidence factor; 0.94 points. 1 fulfilled, 1 partial across 2 applicable operational evidence requirements.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 75 percent evidence factor; 0.56 points. 1 fulfilled, 1 partial across 2 applicable public evidence requirements.
Metric conclusion: Legal identity and standing earns 4.1250 of 5 points. Of 8 enumerated subrequirements, 5 fulfilled, 3 partial.
Why this metric earned 82.50 percent: 8 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and actions for 100 percent
Arithmetic: 5 × [(0.60 × 0.875000) + (0.25 × 0.750000) + (0.15 × 0.750000)] = 4.1250 points.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 1.C1 — fulfilled: The certificate issuer is a resolvable legal entity.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. Colorado records identify the LLC and certification service.
Requirement 1.C2 — fulfilled: The entity is active or otherwise legally authorized to operate.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. Colorado records identify the LLC and certification service.
Requirement 1.C3 — fulfilled: Every public operating name, DBA, division, or brand used for certification is connected to the issuer.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. Colorado records identify the LLC and certification service.
Requirement 1.C4 — partial: Material parent, subsidiary, affiliate, and predecessor relationships affecting certification authority are documented.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. Partially verified from public records.
Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Material parent, subsidiary, affiliate, and predecessor relationships affecting certification authority are documented.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 1.O1 — partial: Current certificates, contracts, or accreditation identify the same accountable issuer.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. Partially verified from public records.
Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Current certificates, contracts, or accreditation identify the same accountable issuer.
Requirement 1.O2 — fulfilled: The operating location and jurisdiction correspond to the entity or a documented branch.
Evidence route: Authoritative source. Colorado state records confirm the principal address in Fort Collins and operations in Severance.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 1.P1 — fulfilled: The public can identify the accountable issuer and operating name.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. Colorado records identify the LLC and certification service.
Requirement 1.P2 — partial: The website, certificate, and public registry do not present materially conflicting issuer identities.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. Partially verified from public records.
Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: The website, certificate, and public registry do not present materially conflicting issuer identities.
2. Ownership and control
9 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
56.25% of this metric; 4.5000 of 8 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 2.40 points. 2 fulfilled, 1 partial, 2 unresolved across 5 applicable control assurance requirements.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 75 percent evidence factor; 1.50 points. 1 fulfilled, 1 partial across 2 applicable operational evidence requirements.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 0.60 points. 1 fulfilled, 1 unresolved across 2 applicable public evidence requirements.
Metric conclusion: Ownership and control earns 4.5000 of 8 points. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 4 fulfilled, 2 partial, 3 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 56.25 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and actions for 100 percent
Arithmetic: 8 × [(0.60 × 0.500000) + (0.25 × 0.750000) + (0.15 × 0.500000)] = 4.5000 points.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 2.C1 — fulfilled: Ultimate owners or members are identified.
Evidence route: Authoritative ownership record. Public records identify the owner and registered agent for the exact LLC.
Requirement 2.C2 — not verified: Ownership percentages or interests are established.
Evidence route: Authoritative ownership record. Complete ownership percentages and member interests are not established.
Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Ownership percentages or interests are established.
Requirement 2.C3 — partial: Voting, management, or equivalent control rights are established.
Evidence route: Authoritative ownership record. Owner and registered-agent roles establish consequential control, while complete voting and decision rights remain unverified.
Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Voting, management, or equivalent control rights are established.
Requirement 2.C4 — not verified: Related entities that could affect control are identified.
Evidence route: Authoritative ownership record. Complete related-party ownership or control arrangements are not established.
Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Related entities that could affect control are identified.
Requirement 2.C5 — fulfilled: Ownership continuity is established or preserved through istiṣḥāb absent contrary evidence.
Evidence route: Authoritative ownership record. The specifically established ownership fact continues under istiṣḥāb absent reliable contrary evidence.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 2.O1 — partial: Ownership and control records are current, maintained, and available to an authorized verifier.
Evidence route: Authoritative ownership record. Public business records corroborate the owner and registered-agent roles, but do not disclose the complete operating control file.
Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Ownership and control records are current, maintained, and available to an authorized verifier.
Requirement 2.O2 — fulfilled: No current record contradicts the established owner or control structure.
Evidence route: Authoritative ownership record. No reliable contrary ownership or control evidence was identified after the affirmative baseline was established.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 2.P1 — fulfilled: Consumers can identify the controlling person or organization when ownership identity is part of the public accountability standard.
Evidence route: Authoritative ownership record. The owner identity is available in the cited public records.
Requirement 2.P2 — not verified: Private percentages, taxpayer data, signatures, and personal addresses need not be published when authoritative evidence establishes them.
Evidence route: Authoritative ownership record. Complete ownership percentages, voting rights, and related-party controls are not established and therefore cannot receive publication credit.
Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Private percentages, taxpayer data, signatures, and personal addresses need not be published when authoritative evidence establishes them.
3. Accountable leadership and governance
10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
50.00% of this metric; 7.0000 of 14 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 4.20 points. 0 fulfilled, 5 partial across 5 applicable control assurance requirements.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 1.75 points. 0 fulfilled, 3 partial across 3 applicable operational evidence requirements.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 1.05 points. 0 fulfilled, 2 partial across 2 applicable public evidence requirements.
Metric conclusion: Accountable leadership and governance earns 7.0000 of 14 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 10 partial.
Why this metric earned 50.00 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and actions for 100 percent
Arithmetic: 14 × [(0.60 × 0.500000) + (0.25 × 0.500000) + (0.15 × 0.500000)] = 7.0000 points.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 3.C1 — partial: Senior leadership is identified.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The owner is publicly accountable, but no broader governance structure is documented.
Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Senior leadership is identified.
Requirement 3.C2 — partial: Organizational structure and reporting lines are defined.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The owner is publicly accountable for the operating service, but no broader governance or certification authority structure is documented.
Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Organizational structure and reporting lines are defined.
Requirement 3.C3 — partial: Certification decision authority is assigned.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The owner is publicly accountable for the operating service, but no broader governance or certification authority structure is documented.
Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Certification decision authority is assigned.
Requirement 3.C4 — partial: Required governance, impartiality, and Islamic-affairs committees exist.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The owner is publicly accountable for the operating service, but no broader governance or certification authority structure is documented.
Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Required governance, impartiality, and Islamic-affairs committees exist.
Requirement 3.C5 — partial: Senior management is accountable for the certification system.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The owner is publicly accountable for the operating service, but no broader governance or certification authority structure is documented.
Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Senior management is accountable for the certification system.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 3.O1 — partial: Governance roles and committees are implemented and reviewed.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The owner is publicly accountable for the operating service, but no broader governance or certification authority structure is documented.
Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Governance roles and committees are implemented and reviewed.
Requirement 3.O2 — partial: Certification decisions follow assigned authority.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The owner is publicly accountable for the operating service, but no broader governance or certification authority structure is documented.
Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Certification decisions follow assigned authority.
Requirement 3.O3 — partial: Management review and internal oversight occur.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The owner is publicly accountable for the operating service, but no broader governance or certification authority structure is documented.
Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Management review and internal oversight occur.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 3.P1 — partial: Responsible leadership and principal governance roles are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The owner is publicly accountable, but no broader governance structure is documented.
Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Responsible leadership and principal governance roles are publicly identifiable.
Requirement 3.P2 — partial: The public can understand who is accountable for halal decisions and certification decisions.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The owner is publicly accountable for the operating service, but no broader governance or certification authority structure is documented.
Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: The public can understand who is accountable for halal decisions and certification decisions.
4. Qualified personnel
14 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
4.29% of this metric; 0.7714 of 18 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 7 percent evidence factor; 0.77 points. 0 fulfilled, 1 partial, 6 unresolved across 7 applicable control assurance requirements.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. 0 fulfilled, 4 unresolved across 4 applicable operational evidence requirements.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. 0 fulfilled, 3 unresolved across 3 applicable public evidence requirements.
Metric conclusion: Qualified personnel earns 0.7714 of 18 points. Of 14 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 1 partial, 13 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 4.29 percent: 14 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and actions for 100 percent
Arithmetic: 18 × [(0.60 × 0.071429) + (0.25 × 0.000000) + (0.15 × 0.000000)] = 0.7714 points.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 4.C1 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for technical auditors.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator without publishing qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Competence criteria exist for technical auditors.
Requirement 4.C2 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for Islamic-affairs experts.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator without publishing qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Competence criteria exist for Islamic-affairs experts.
Requirement 4.C3 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for reviewers and decision makers.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator without publishing qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Competence criteria exist for reviewers and decision makers.
Requirement 4.C4 — partial: Muslim-status requirements are applied where the governing standard requires them.
Evidence route: Public source. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator.
Public sources: Source 1
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Muslim-status requirements are applied where the governing standard requires them.
Requirement 4.C5 — not verified: Training, education, experience, and sector competence are defined.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator without publishing qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Training, education, experience, and sector competence are defined.
Requirement 4.C6 — not verified: Authorization, assignment, monitoring, and performance review are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator without publishing qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Authorization, assignment, monitoring, and performance review are controlled.
Requirement 4.C7 — not verified: External personnel and contractors satisfy the same applicable requirements.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator without publishing qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: External personnel and contractors satisfy the same applicable requirements.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 4.O1 — not verified: Current personnel records demonstrate qualification and authorization.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator without publishing qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Current personnel records demonstrate qualification and authorization.
Requirement 4.O2 — not verified: Audit teams contain the required technical and Islamic expertise.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator without publishing qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Audit teams contain the required technical and Islamic expertise.
Requirement 4.O3 — not verified: Assignments match sector and scope competence.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator without publishing qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Assignments match sector and scope competence.
Requirement 4.O4 — not verified: Personnel performance and continuing competence are monitored.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator without publishing qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Personnel performance and continuing competence are monitored.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 4.P1 — not verified: Responsible personnel roles are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator without publishing qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Responsible personnel roles are publicly identifiable.
Requirement 4.P2 — not verified: A reasonable public qualification basis is available for principal technical and Islamic authorities.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator without publishing qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: A reasonable public qualification basis is available for principal technical and Islamic authorities.
Requirement 4.P3 — not verified: Private personnel files, degree numbers, and every assignment record need not be published when accreditation verifies competence.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator without publishing qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Private personnel files, degree numbers, and every assignment record need not be published when accreditation verifies competence.
5. Islamic authority and halal decision rights
11 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.00% of this metric; 0.0000 of 18 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. 0 fulfilled, 6 unresolved across 6 applicable control assurance requirements.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. 0 fulfilled, 3 unresolved across 3 applicable operational evidence requirements.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. 0 fulfilled, 2 unresolved across 2 applicable public evidence requirements.
Metric conclusion: Islamic authority and halal decision rights earns 0.0000 of 18 points. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 11 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and actions for 100 percent
Arithmetic: 18 × [(0.60 × 0.000000) + (0.25 × 0.000000) + (0.15 × 0.000000)] = 0.0000 points.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 5.C1 — not verified: Qualified Muslim Islamic-affairs experts are appointed.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site states basic Islamic slaughter requirements but does not identify a qualified religious authority or final halal decision mechanism.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Qualified Muslim Islamic-affairs experts are appointed.
Requirement 5.C2 — not verified: Muslim decision makers are used where required.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site states basic Islamic slaughter requirements but does not identify a qualified religious authority or final halal decision mechanism.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Muslim decision makers are used where required.
Requirement 5.C3 — not verified: The Islamic-affairs committee has defined composition and authority.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site states basic Islamic slaughter requirements but does not identify a qualified religious authority or final halal decision mechanism.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: The Islamic-affairs committee has defined composition and authority.
Requirement 5.C4 — not verified: Halal interpretations, disputed questions, and escalations have a controlled decision path.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site states basic Islamic slaughter requirements but does not identify a qualified religious authority or final halal decision mechanism.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Halal interpretations, disputed questions, and escalations have a controlled decision path.
Requirement 5.C5 — not verified: Islamic authority is independent of sales and client pressure.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site states basic Islamic slaughter requirements but does not identify a qualified religious authority or final halal decision mechanism.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Islamic authority is independent of sales and client pressure.
Requirement 5.C6 — not verified: Final halal and certification decision rights are unambiguous.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site states basic Islamic slaughter requirements but does not identify a qualified religious authority or final halal decision mechanism.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Final halal and certification decision rights are unambiguous.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 5.O1 — not verified: Islamic experts participate in audit, review, and decision functions as required.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site states basic Islamic slaughter requirements but does not identify a qualified religious authority or final halal decision mechanism.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Islamic experts participate in audit, review, and decision functions as required.
Requirement 5.O2 — not verified: Committee or expert decisions are documented and implemented.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site states basic Islamic slaughter requirements but does not identify a qualified religious authority or final halal decision mechanism.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Committee or expert decisions are documented and implemented.
Requirement 5.O3 — not verified: Certification cannot be issued contrary to the authorized halal decision.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site states basic Islamic slaughter requirements but does not identify a qualified religious authority or final halal decision mechanism.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Certification cannot be issued contrary to the authorized halal decision.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 5.P1 — not verified: The principal Islamic authority or committee is publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site states basic Islamic slaughter requirements but does not identify a qualified religious authority or final halal decision mechanism.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: The principal Islamic authority or committee is publicly identifiable.
Requirement 5.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who has final halal-decision authority.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site states basic Islamic slaughter requirements but does not identify a qualified religious authority or final halal decision mechanism.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: The public can understand who has final halal-decision authority.
6. Halal-specific audit and certification controls
15 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
6.00% of this metric; 0.8400 of 14 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 10 percent evidence factor; 0.84 points. 0 fulfilled, 2 partial, 8 unresolved across 10 applicable control assurance requirements.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. 0 fulfilled, 3 unresolved across 3 applicable operational evidence requirements.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. 0 fulfilled, 2 unresolved across 2 applicable public evidence requirements.
Metric conclusion: Halal-specific audit and certification controls earns 0.8400 of 14 points. Of 15 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 2 partial, 13 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 6.00 percent: 15 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and actions for 100 percent
Arithmetic: 14 × [(0.60 × 0.100000) + (0.25 × 0.000000) + (0.15 × 0.000000)] = 0.8400 points.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 6.C1 — not verified: Application and application review are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit and tailored paperwork, but no current certificate or complete controlled lifecycle demonstrates implementation.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Application and application review are controlled.
Requirement 6.C2 — not verified: The audit program and audit time are determined by scope, risk, complexity, sites, and prior results.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit and tailored paperwork, but no current certificate or complete controlled lifecycle demonstrates implementation.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: The audit program and audit time are determined by scope, risk, complexity, sites, and prior results.
Requirement 6.C3 — partial: Stage-one and stage-two audits are used where applicable.
Evidence route: Public source. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit.
Public sources: Source 1
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Stage-one and stage-two audits are used where applicable.
Requirement 6.C4 — partial: Audit teams perform halal-specific document and facility review.
Evidence route: Public source. The site describes providing tailored certification documentation.
Public sources: Source 1
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Audit teams perform halal-specific document and facility review.
Requirement 6.C5 — not verified: Sampling, inspection, and accredited laboratory testing are controlled where applicable.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit and tailored paperwork, but no current certificate or complete controlled lifecycle demonstrates implementation.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Sampling, inspection, and accredited laboratory testing are controlled where applicable.
Requirement 6.C6 — not verified: Audit reports and nonconformities are documented.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit and tailored paperwork, but no current certificate or complete controlled lifecycle demonstrates implementation.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Audit reports and nonconformities are documented.
Requirement 6.C7 — not verified: Independent review and certification decisions are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit and tailored paperwork, but no current certificate or complete controlled lifecycle demonstrates implementation.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Independent review and certification decisions are controlled.
Requirement 6.C8 — not verified: Surveillance and recertification are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit and tailored paperwork, but no current certificate or complete controlled lifecycle demonstrates implementation.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Surveillance and recertification are controlled.
Requirement 6.C9 — not verified: Suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit and tailored paperwork, but no current certificate or complete controlled lifecycle demonstrates implementation.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.
Requirement 6.C10 — not verified: Outsourced work remains under HCB responsibility.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit and tailored paperwork, but no current certificate or complete controlled lifecycle demonstrates implementation.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Outsourced work remains under HCB responsibility.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 6.O1 — not verified: The current certification system implements each applicable control.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit and tailored paperwork, but no current certificate or complete controlled lifecycle demonstrates implementation.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: The current certification system implements each applicable control.
Requirement 6.O2 — not verified: Surveillance or accreditation assessment verifies continued implementation.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit and tailored paperwork, but no current certificate or complete controlled lifecycle demonstrates implementation.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Surveillance or accreditation assessment verifies continued implementation.
Requirement 6.O3 — not verified: No affirmative evidence shows reliance on an unauthorized third party for the halal decision.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit and tailored paperwork, but no current certificate or complete controlled lifecycle demonstrates implementation.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: No affirmative evidence shows reliance on an unauthorized third party for the halal decision.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 6.P1 — not verified: The certification pathway and principal stages are publicly understandable.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit and tailored paperwork, but no current certificate or complete controlled lifecycle demonstrates implementation.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: The certification pathway and principal stages are publicly understandable.
Requirement 6.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the governing scheme and certificate status consequences.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit and tailored paperwork, but no current certificate or complete controlled lifecycle demonstrates implementation.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: The public can identify the governing scheme and certificate status consequences.
7. Impartiality, conflicts, and independence
11 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.00% of this metric; 0.0000 of 6 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. 0 fulfilled, 6 unresolved across 6 applicable control assurance requirements.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. 0 fulfilled, 3 unresolved across 3 applicable operational evidence requirements.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. 0 fulfilled, 2 unresolved across 2 applicable public evidence requirements.
Metric conclusion: Impartiality, conflicts, and independence earns 0.0000 of 6 points. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 11 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and actions for 100 percent
Arithmetic: 6 × [(0.60 × 0.000000) + (0.25 × 0.000000) + (0.15 × 0.000000)] = 0.0000 points.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 7.C1 — not verified: An impartiality policy and risk process exist.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public conflict, review independence, or audit-to-decision separation controls were located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: An impartiality policy and risk process exist.
Requirement 7.C2 — not verified: An impartiality committee or equivalent mechanism operates.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public conflict, review independence, or audit-to-decision separation controls were located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: An impartiality committee or equivalent mechanism operates.
Requirement 7.C3 — not verified: Consulting and certification conflicts are prohibited or controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public conflict, review independence, or audit-to-decision separation controls were located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Consulting and certification conflicts are prohibited or controlled.
Requirement 7.C4 — not verified: Financial, commercial, and relationship threats are identified and mitigated.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public conflict, review independence, or audit-to-decision separation controls were located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Financial, commercial, and relationship threats are identified and mitigated.
Requirement 7.C5 — not verified: Recusal and independent decision rules exist.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public conflict, review independence, or audit-to-decision separation controls were located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Recusal and independent decision rules exist.
Requirement 7.C6 — not verified: Outsourced and external personnel are subject to impartiality and confidentiality controls.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public conflict, review independence, or audit-to-decision separation controls were located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Outsourced and external personnel are subject to impartiality and confidentiality controls.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 7.O1 — not verified: Impartiality risks are reviewed periodically.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public conflict, review independence, or audit-to-decision separation controls were located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Impartiality risks are reviewed periodically.
Requirement 7.O2 — not verified: Conflicts and recusals are documented.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public conflict, review independence, or audit-to-decision separation controls were located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Conflicts and recusals are documented.
Requirement 7.O3 — not verified: Certification decisions remain independent of audit, sales, and consulting pressure.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public conflict, review independence, or audit-to-decision separation controls were located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Certification decisions remain independent of audit, sales, and consulting pressure.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 7.P1 — not verified: The impartiality commitment and complaint route are publicly accessible.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public conflict, review independence, or audit-to-decision separation controls were located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: The impartiality commitment and complaint route are publicly accessible.
Requirement 7.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the separation between certification and prohibited consulting.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public conflict, review independence, or audit-to-decision separation controls were located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: The public can identify the separation between certification and prohibited consulting.
8. Standards, scheme, and certification scope
10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.00% of this metric; 0.0000 of 3 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. 0 fulfilled, 6 unresolved across 6 applicable control assurance requirements.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. 0 fulfilled, 2 unresolved across 2 applicable operational evidence requirements.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. 0 fulfilled, 2 unresolved across 2 applicable public evidence requirements.
Metric conclusion: Standards, scheme, and certification scope earns 0.0000 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 10 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and actions for 100 percent
Arithmetic: 3 × [(0.60 × 0.000000) + (0.25 × 0.000000) + (0.15 × 0.000000)] = 0.0000 points.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 8.C1 — not verified: Governing standard names and versions are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site makes general Islamic and ISO-alignment references without a named, versioned certification scheme or complete scope rules.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Governing standard names and versions are controlled.
Requirement 8.C2 — not verified: Accredited or claimed categories, activities, products, sites, and locations are defined.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site makes general Islamic and ISO-alignment references without a named, versioned certification scheme or complete scope rules.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Accredited or claimed categories, activities, products, sites, and locations are defined.
Requirement 8.C3 — not verified: Exclusions and limitations are defined.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site makes general Islamic and ISO-alignment references without a named, versioned certification scheme or complete scope rules.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Exclusions and limitations are defined.
Requirement 8.C4 — not verified: Supplementary destination-market schemes are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site makes general Islamic and ISO-alignment references without a named, versioned certification scheme or complete scope rules.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Supplementary destination-market schemes are controlled.
Requirement 8.C5 — not verified: A precedence rule resolves conflicts between base and supplementary requirements.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site makes general Islamic and ISO-alignment references without a named, versioned certification scheme or complete scope rules.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: A precedence rule resolves conflicts between base and supplementary requirements.
Requirement 8.C6 — not verified: Clients receive the applicable version and scope.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site makes general Islamic and ISO-alignment references without a named, versioned certification scheme or complete scope rules.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Clients receive the applicable version and scope.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 8.O1 — not verified: Certificates and audits use the correct current standard and scope.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site makes general Islamic and ISO-alignment references without a named, versioned certification scheme or complete scope rules.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Certificates and audits use the correct current standard and scope.
Requirement 8.O2 — not verified: Scope changes and version changes are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site makes general Islamic and ISO-alignment references without a named, versioned certification scheme or complete scope rules.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Scope changes and version changes are controlled.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 8.P1 — not verified: The principal standard, version, category, and certification scope are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site makes general Islamic and ISO-alignment references without a named, versioned certification scheme or complete scope rules.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: The principal standard, version, category, and certification scope are publicly identifiable.
Requirement 8.P2 — not verified: The public can determine whether supplementary schemes apply and how conflicts are resolved.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site makes general Islamic and ISO-alignment references without a named, versioned certification scheme or complete scope rules.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: The public can determine whether supplementary schemes apply and how conflicts are resolved.
9. Public certification criteria and position disclosure
20 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.00% of this metric; 0.0000 of 8 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. 0 fulfilled, 3 unresolved across 3 applicable control assurance requirements.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. 0 fulfilled, 3 unresolved across 3 applicable operational evidence requirements.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. 0 fulfilled, 14 unresolved across 14 applicable public evidence requirements.
Metric conclusion: Public certification criteria and position disclosure earns 0.0000 of 8 points. Of 20 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 20 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 20 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and actions for 100 percent
Arithmetic: 8 × [(0.60 × 0.000000) + (0.25 × 0.000000) + (0.15 × 0.000000)] = 0.0000 points.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 9.C1 — not verified: The public disclosure is authorized, versioned, dated, and controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: The public disclosure is authorized, versioned, dated, and controlled.
Requirement 9.C2 — not verified: It identifies the governing Islamic and technical authority.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: It identifies the governing Islamic and technical authority.
Requirement 9.C3 — not verified: It addresses every applicable Form 1002-D field or marks it not applicable.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: It addresses every applicable Form 1002-D field or marks it not applicable.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 9.O1 — not verified: Public criteria match the operative certification scheme.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Public criteria match the operative certification scheme.
Requirement 9.O2 — not verified: Changes to criteria are reflected in the controlled public version.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Changes to criteria are reflected in the controlled public version.
Requirement 9.O3 — not verified: Supplementary-scheme positions and precedence are kept current.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Supplementary-scheme positions and precedence are kept current.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 9.P1 — not verified: Religious or jurisprudential basis.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Religious or jurisprudential basis.
Requirement 9.P2 — not verified: Supplementary destination-market schemes and precedence.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Supplementary destination-market schemes and precedence.
Requirement 9.P3 — not verified: Mechanical poultry slaughter.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Mechanical poultry slaughter.
Requirement 9.P4 — not verified: Mechanical-line tasmiyah.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Mechanical-line tasmiyah.
Requirement 9.P5 — not verified: Slaughter-person requirements and supervision.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Slaughter-person requirements and supervision.
Requirement 9.P6 — not verified: Stunning and reversibility.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Stunning and reversibility.
Requirement 9.P7 — not verified: Alive-at-cut control.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Alive-at-cut control.
Requirement 9.P8 — not verified: Minimum vessel requirement.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Minimum vessel requirement.
Requirement 9.P9 — not verified: Pork and animal derivatives.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Pork and animal derivatives.
Requirement 9.P10 — not verified: Alcohol and ethanol.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Alcohol and ethanol.
Requirement 9.P11 — not verified: Processing aids and ingredient sources.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Processing aids and ingredient sources.
Requirement 9.P12 — not verified: Shared lines and cross-contact.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Shared lines and cross-contact.
Requirement 9.P13 — not verified: Sanitation or ritual cleansing.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Sanitation or ritual cleansing.
Requirement 9.P14 — not verified: Certificate-level position communication.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Certificate-level position communication.
10. Certificate traceability and mark control
10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.00% of this metric; 0.0000 of 3 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. 0 fulfilled, 5 unresolved across 5 applicable control assurance requirements.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. 0 fulfilled, 3 unresolved across 3 applicable operational evidence requirements.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. 0 fulfilled, 2 unresolved across 2 applicable public evidence requirements.
Metric conclusion: Certificate traceability and mark control earns 0.0000 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 10 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and actions for 100 percent
Arithmetic: 3 × [(0.60 × 0.000000) + (0.25 × 0.000000) + (0.15 × 0.000000)] = 0.0000 points.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 10.C1 — not verified: Certificate templates contain required issuer, holder, site, product or activity scope, identifier, issue date, expiry date, and authorization.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public certificate example, status directory, or mark-control procedure was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Certificate templates contain required issuer, holder, site, product or activity scope, identifier, issue date, expiry date, and authorization.
Requirement 10.C2 — not verified: A certified-client and product directory is controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public certificate example, status directory, or mark-control procedure was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: A certified-client and product directory is controlled.
Requirement 10.C3 — not verified: Certificate status, renewal, suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public certificate example, status directory, or mark-control procedure was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Certificate status, renewal, suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.
Requirement 10.C4 — not verified: Halal-mark licensing, display, reproduction, translation, and misuse are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public certificate example, status directory, or mark-control procedure was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Halal-mark licensing, display, reproduction, translation, and misuse are controlled.
Requirement 10.C5 — not verified: Verification records are traceable to the exact certificate and issuer.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public certificate example, status directory, or mark-control procedure was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Verification records are traceable to the exact certificate and issuer.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 10.O1 — not verified: Certificates and marks are monitored in use.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public certificate example, status directory, or mark-control procedure was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Certificates and marks are monitored in use.
Requirement 10.O2 — not verified: Misuse and expired status are acted upon.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public certificate example, status directory, or mark-control procedure was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Misuse and expired status are acted upon.
Requirement 10.O3 — not verified: Directory and status records are maintained.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public certificate example, status directory, or mark-control procedure was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Directory and status records are maintained.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 10.P1 — not verified: Consumers can verify current certificate status through a working HTTPS route, searchable directory, QR destination, or equivalent accessible mechanism.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public certificate example, status directory, or mark-control procedure was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Consumers can verify current certificate status through a working HTTPS route, searchable directory, QR destination, or equivalent accessible mechanism.
Requirement 10.P2 — not verified: Public verification shows enough information to distinguish holder, scope, site or product, identifier, and validity.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public certificate example, status directory, or mark-control procedure was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Public verification shows enough information to distinguish holder, scope, site or product, identifier, and validity.
11. Complaints, appeals, and corrections
10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.00% of this metric; 0.0000 of 1 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. 0 fulfilled, 5 unresolved across 5 applicable control assurance requirements.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. 0 fulfilled, 3 unresolved across 3 applicable operational evidence requirements.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. 0 fulfilled, 2 unresolved across 2 applicable public evidence requirements.
Metric conclusion: Complaints, appeals, and corrections earns 0.0000 of 1 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 10 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and actions for 100 percent
Arithmetic: 1 × [(0.60 × 0.000000) + (0.25 × 0.000000) + (0.15 × 0.000000)] = 0.0000 points.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 11.C1 — not verified: Complaints and appeals have documented procedures.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public complaint, appeal, or correction procedure was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Complaints and appeals have documented procedures.
Requirement 11.C2 — not verified: Independent committee or reviewer requirements are defined.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public complaint, appeal, or correction procedure was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Independent committee or reviewer requirements are defined.
Requirement 11.C3 — not verified: Islamic-affairs expertise participates where required.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public complaint, appeal, or correction procedure was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Islamic-affairs expertise participates where required.
Requirement 11.C4 — not verified: Investigation, decision, communication, corrective action, and records are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public complaint, appeal, or correction procedure was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Investigation, decision, communication, corrective action, and records are controlled.
Requirement 11.C5 — not verified: Conflicts and recusals are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public complaint, appeal, or correction procedure was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Conflicts and recusals are controlled.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 11.O1 — not verified: The mechanism is implemented and reviewed.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public complaint, appeal, or correction procedure was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: The mechanism is implemented and reviewed.
Requirement 11.O2 — not verified: Complainants and appellants are informed of outcomes.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public complaint, appeal, or correction procedure was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Complainants and appellants are informed of outcomes.
Requirement 11.O3 — not verified: Valid complaints can trigger investigation and certificate action.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public complaint, appeal, or correction procedure was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Valid complaints can trigger investigation and certificate action.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 11.P1 — not verified: A working public route or contact method exists for complaints and appeals.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public complaint, appeal, or correction procedure was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: A working public route or contact method exists for complaints and appeals.
Requirement 11.P2 — not verified: The submission pathway and responsible organization are clear.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public complaint, appeal, or correction procedure was located.
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: The submission pathway and responsible organization are clear.
12. Operating history and demonstrated capacity
9 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
50.00% of this metric; 1.0000 of 2 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 0.60 points. 0 fulfilled, 4 partial across 4 applicable control assurance requirements.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 0.25 points. 0 fulfilled, 3 partial across 3 applicable operational evidence requirements.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 0.15 points. 0 fulfilled, 2 partial across 2 applicable public evidence requirements.
Metric conclusion: Operating history and demonstrated capacity earns 1.0000 of 2 points. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 9 partial.
Why this metric earned 50.00 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and actions for 100 percent
Arithmetic: 2 × [(0.60 × 0.500000) + (0.25 × 0.500000) + (0.15 × 0.500000)] = 1.0000 points.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 12.C1 — partial: The HCB defines competence and resource needs for each scope.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The site reports long industry experience and active regional service, but recent certification output and resource capacity are not independently established.
Public sources: Source 1
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: The HCB defines competence and resource needs for each scope.
Requirement 12.C2 — partial: Audit time, staffing, sites, shifts, categories, and workload are considered.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The site reports long industry experience and active regional service, but recent certification output and resource capacity are not independently established.
Public sources: Source 1
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Audit time, staffing, sites, shifts, categories, and workload are considered.
Requirement 12.C3 — partial: External resources and outsourcing are controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The site reports long industry experience and active regional service, but recent certification output and resource capacity are not independently established.
Public sources: Source 1
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: External resources and outsourcing are controlled.
Requirement 12.C4 — partial: Records, internal audits, management review, and corrective action support continued delivery.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The site reports long industry experience and active regional service, but recent certification output and resource capacity are not independently established.
Public sources: Source 1
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Records, internal audits, management review, and corrective action support continued delivery.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 12.O1 — partial: Current accreditation or direct evidence verifies active delivery capacity within scope.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The site reports long industry experience and active regional service, but recent certification output and resource capacity are not independently established.
Public sources: Source 1
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Current accreditation or direct evidence verifies active delivery capacity within scope.
Requirement 12.O2 — partial: Current certificates or clients demonstrate active operations.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The site reports long industry experience and active regional service, but recent certification output and resource capacity are not independently established.
Public sources: Source 1
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Current certificates or clients demonstrate active operations.
Requirement 12.O3 — partial: Surveillance, recertification, and management review maintain capacity.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The site reports long industry experience and active regional service, but recent certification output and resource capacity are not independently established.
Public sources: Source 1
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Surveillance, recertification, and management review maintain capacity.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 12.P1 — partial: Operating history, current service scope, and accountable contact are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The site reports long industry experience and active regional service, but recent certification output and resource capacity are not independently established.
Public sources: Source 1
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Operating history, current service scope, and accountable contact are publicly identifiable.
Requirement 12.P2 — partial: Confidential client volumes, payroll, and workload files need not be published when current accreditation verifies capacity.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The site reports long industry experience and active regional service, but recent certification output and resource capacity are not independently established.
Public sources: Source 1
Needed for 100 percent: provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Confidential client volumes, payroll, and workload files need not be published when current accreditation verifies capacity.
Part 3
Conclusion
Strongest findings
- Metric 1, Legal identity and standing, earned 4.1250 of 5 points (82.5%).
- Metric 2, Ownership and control, earned 4.5000 of 8 points (56.25%).
- Metric 3, Accountable leadership and governance, earned 7.0000 of 14 points (50%).
Material gaps
- Metric 5, Islamic authority and halal decision rights, has 18.0000 points not earned; the requirement table identifies every affected item and evidence route.
- Metric 4, Qualified personnel, has 17.2286 points not earned; the requirement table identifies every affected item and evidence route.
- Metric 6, Halal-specific audit and certification controls, has 13.1600 points not earned; the requirement table identifies every affected item and evidence route.
Unresolved questions
- For 1.C4, provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Material parent, subsidiary, affiliate, and predecessor relationships affecting certification authority are documented.
- For 1.O1, provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Current certificates, contracts, or accreditation identify the same accountable issuer.
- For 1.P2, provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: The website, certificate, and public registry do not present materially conflicting issuer identities.
- For 2.C2, provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Ownership percentages or interests are established.
- For 2.C3, provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Voting, management, or equivalent control rights are established.
- For 2.C4, provide evidence sufficient to fulfill: Related entities that could affect control are identified.
Credibility Score interpretation
- The raw Credibility Score is 18.2364 out of 100 and is ordinarily rounded to 18%.
- Metrics 3 through 6 earned 8.6114 of 64 points under the responsible-person and core halal-control block.
- Metric 9 earned 0.0000 of 8 points from fourteen nonduplicative public Form 1002-D fields; governing standard, version, and scope belong to Metric 8, while public certificate lookup belongs to Metric 10.
- Methodology 3.0 replaces automatic factor caps with arithmetic means of enumerated statuses: fulfilled = 1, partial = 0.5, not verified or contradicted = 0, and genuinely not applicable = excluded.
- The previous methodology 2.5 result was 28.7800 raw / 29% / Grade F; the audited methodology 3.0 change is -10.5436 raw points.
Material records are rescored under the same rules, whether they raise or lower the result. Submit documentary evidence through the secure evidence and correction form. An authorized representative may claim this certification body with qualifying documents. A verified claim does not confer editorial control or automatically change an article, Credibility Score, Grade, ranking, or certification status.
Entity, accreditation, and scope boundary
The assessed entity is Ben-issa LLC, operating as Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions, a Colorado Limited Liability Company [1] [2]. The scope of this assessment covers its public halal certification and harvesting services [3].
There is no publicly verified exact-entity accreditation or recognition from an independent oversight body [3]. The organization's internal structures, including any potential affiliates or independent certification decision boards, are not independently verified [3].
This accountability assessment applies the published USDHS methodology as an evidence-review framework; it does not replace the controlling HIPS standard or make a religious ruling on every certificate or product.
Public certification criteria and position disclosure
Ben-issa LLC states that its harvesting is performed by a practicing Muslim operator using a swift cut, invoking the name of God, and ensuring full bleed-out [4]. The organization conducts one-shift on-site audits and provides tailored certification documentation [3] [3].
The organization's public positions on mechanical poultry slaughter, tasmiyyah (blessing) procedures beyond the general invocation, stunning, living-at-cut controls, and the management of shared lines, sanitation, ingredients, and alcohol are not publicly established [3].
Furthermore, detailed certification standards, a versioned scheme, and comprehensive scope rules are not publicly available [3]. Missing evidence regarding these specific operational controls is not independently verified and does not necessarily indicate their absence.
No public certificate directory, status-control system, or documented complaint, appeal, and correction mechanism was located [3]. The lack of these transparency and accountability mechanisms limits external verification of its ongoing certification activities.
Credibility Score and evidence-bounded conclusion
Ben-issa LLC provides localized halal harvesting and certification services but operates without publicly verified independent oversight, detailed certification standards, or transparent governance structures [3]. The organization's reliance on general operational claims without a public certificate directory or documented accountability mechanisms significantly limits its verifiable credibility [3].
Consequently, the organization receives a 18% Credibility Score (Grade F). Significant improvements in public transparency, documented governance, and accessible certification criteria are required to meet baseline accountability standards.
What evidence would change the remaining deductions
This section states what evidence would support a higher score for Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions. It does not imply that a control is absent merely because the reviewed public record did not establish it. A submission must match the exact assessed entity, identify its dates and scope, and show who was responsible for implementation and decision-making.
Qualifying records may be public or may be submitted privately through the secure evidence pathway. Private records may support control or operational assurance when they can be authenticated, but they do not create public-transparency credit unless the organization makes the material information public.
- Metric 1 — Legal identity and operating status: A current authoritative registry or regulator record for Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions showing the exact legal name, entity number, jurisdiction, formation date, active status, operating name, and any required certification-business registration not already established.
- Metric 2 — Ownership and control: A current authoritative ownership filing or authenticated controlled record for Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions identifying beneficial owners, ownership percentages, voting or governance rights, controlling persons, related entities, and conflict controls for the exact assessed entity.
- Metric 3 — Governance and accountable leadership: A current Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions governing-body roster and organogram identifying accountable leaders, their roles, appointment or authority basis, management responsibilities, and entity-level accountability for certification decisions.
- Metric 4 — Personnel competence and authorization: A current Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions personnel roster or independently assessed controlled record identifying auditors, technical experts, reviewers, contractors, qualifications, sector experience, halal and audit training, authorization scope, assignments, monitoring, and competence review.
- Metric 5 — Islamic authority and halal decision: Current Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions records identifying the Islamic-affairs experts or decision body, qualifications, appointment, jurisprudential basis, review responsibility, entity-level authority, and traceable participation in final halal decisions.
- Metric 6 — Halal audit method and facility verification: A current controlled Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions audit procedure and corroborating recent files showing application and scope review, ingredients and process evaluation, on-site work, halal-specific observations, findings, corrective actions, reports, surveillance, and recertification.
- Metric 7 — Impartiality and decision separation: A current Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions impartiality and decision-separation policy plus implementation records identifying conflict review, consultancy separation, oversight membership, and separation among audit, technical review, Islamic review, and certification decision.
- Metric 8 — Standards, scheme, and certification scope: A current Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions standard or scheme record identifying version, effective date, covered sectors and locations, exclusions, supplementary schemes, precedence rules, certificate scope, and responsible issuing entity.
- Metric 9 — Public certification criteria and position disclosure: A current public Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions declaration or equivalent methodology covering the governing standard and version, religious basis, scope and exclusions, practical halal positions, supplementary-scheme precedence, certificate communication, and public verification route.
- Metric 10 — Certificate traceability and mark control: A current public Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions certificate directory or verification method showing certificate identifier, holder, site, products or scope, effective and expiry dates, live status, suspension or withdrawal, and enforceable mark-use and misuse controls.
- Metric 11 — Complaints, appeals, and corrections: A current public Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions complaints, appeals, and corrections procedure identifying submission routes, acknowledgement and response timing, independent review, records, re-examination, corrective action, and non-retaliation or equivalent fairness protections.
- Metric 12 — Operating history and demonstrated capacity: Current independently verifiable Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions operating records showing timeline, active clients or certificates, sectors and locations served, workload, surveillance activity, and competent personnel capacity matched to that workload.
Equal-treatment re-audit and correction record
On September 14, 2026, USDHS reopened this assessment under the same equal-treatment correction protocol applied across the national series. The review retested all twelve metrics, all eighteen consumer-disclosure fields, source links, exact-entity boundaries, accreditation credit, arithmetic, and legal and privacy safeguards. The verified record did not support a change to the 18.2364 raw score, 18% Credibility Score, Grade F. The score was re-audited and retained.
The assessment remains appealable. The certifier or another affected party may submit qualifying records through the correction form, and an authorized representative may use the verified claim pathway. Evidence is reviewed under the same rules whether it raises, lowers, or preserves the score; submission does not create a private veto or automatic editorial control.
Corrections, appeals, and claiming this certification body
Ben-issa LLC, operating as Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions or another affected party may submit responsive records through the secure documentary-evidence form. Material evidence is evaluated under the same methodology whether it raises or lowers the Credibility Score.
An authorized representative may also use Claim this certification body. The claimant must document their identity, role, and authority to act for the exact assessed entity, and that authority must be verified through qualifying documentation and an independently confirmable official contact channel. A claim remains private and pending until reviewed; it does not confer editorial control, disclose other submissions, or automatically change an article, Credibility Score, Grade, or ranking.
A correction request should identify the exact entity, statement, metric, source, effective dates, scope, responsible people, and requested correction. Publication is not conditional on a response, and no organization has a private veto over a documented finding.
Methodology 3.0 universal recalibration record
On September 15, 2026, USDHS recalculated this assessment under the same 137-subrequirement rubric applied to all 26 ranked U.S. halal certification bodies. The raw score decreased from 28.7800 under methodology 2.5 to 18.2364 under methodology 3.0, displayed as 18% Credibility Score, Grade F.
The recalibration gives full credit when current independent accreditation of the exact entity and scope expressly assesses the requirement, including implementation where the accreditation process examines or surveils operation. Public credit remains separate unless an express publication duty exists and the direct public route works. Established ownership and control continue under istiṣḥāb absent reliable contrary evidence, but silence alone cannot establish an ownership baseline.
Every applicable requirement, status, evidence route, public source, layer factor, weighted result, and exact action for full credit appears in the scorecard. The same correction and certification-body claim pathways remain available, and evidence may raise or lower the result.
Frequently asked questions
Is Ben-issa LLC an accredited halal certifier?
There is no publicly verified exact-entity accreditation or recognition from an independent oversight body for Ben-issa LLC.
Who owns Ben-issa LLC?
Public records indicate that Malik Issa (Abdelmalik Issa) is the owner and registered agent of Ben-issa LLC.
What halal standards does Ben-issa LLC use?
The organization states it performs harvesting to Islamic standards (a swift cut by a Muslim operator, invoking the name of God, and full bleed-out), but a detailed, versioned certification scheme is not publicly established.
Can I verify a certificate issued by Ben-issa LLC online?
No, there is currently no public certificate directory or online status control mechanism verified for the organization.
How did Ben-issa LLC score in the accountability assessment?
The organization earned a 18% Credibility Score (Grade F) due to limited public transparency regarding its governance, detailed standards, and independent oversight.