Entity and accreditation boundary
The assessed certification entity is the Halal Monitoring Services program of Shariah Board of America / Rahmat-e-Alam Foundation, an Illinois 501(c)(3) nonprofit. [1] [3]
No current independent accreditation or foreign-authority recognition was verified. The assessment relies entirely on direct operational and public evidence of the organization's controls. Searches were conducted across GAC, HAK, JAKIM, MUIS, BPJPH, and EIAC directories.
Halal Industry Exposé · Comprehensive Accountability Assessment
Halal Monitoring Services program of Shariah Board of America / Rahmat-e-Alam Foundation, an Illinois 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Organizational accountability: 45% · Grade F · Insufficiently substantiated
Moderate confidence. Halal Monitoring Services receives 45%, Grade F. The organization operates a free-of-charge monitoring network with strict Zabiha Halal standards, but its specific personnel and governance structures are not publicly verified.
This comprehensive organizational accountability assessment combines the standardized score with the documented business-practice investigation. Flags explain evidence already scored inside the eleven fixed metrics and create no separate bonus or penalty points. The article does not rule that every certificate is invalid, prove that an undisclosed control does not exist, or infer anyone’s religion or intent.
Halal Certification Body Accountability Assessment version 2.4. Source cutoff September 13, 2026. Last reviewed September 13, 2026. Raw score 45.1050 out of 100, ordinarily rounded to 45%.
Trust overview
Green flags and red flags
These flags explain evidence already scored inside the eleven fixed metrics. They do not create separate bonus or penalty points.
Green flags
Free-of-charge service model
HMS offers its certification and monitoring services completely free of charge, significantly reducing financial conflicts of interest and strengthening its impartiality.
Metrics: #7
Score treatment: Supports operational evidence of impartiality.
Boundary: Does not replace the need for formal conflict of interest policies.
Sources: [3]
Clear, stringent Zabiha Halal standards
HMS publishes clear, stringent standards requiring hand-slaughtered Zabiha Halal and prohibiting machine slaughter, backed by an extensive public directory of certified locations.
Metrics: #6, #8, #9
Score treatment: Supports control and public transparency scores in standards and audit methods.
Boundary: Applies only to the published standards and directory.
Red flags
Specific personnel and governance structures are not publicly verified
The specific names, qualifications, and assignments of the "independent team of experienced Ulama" responsible for auditing and certification decisions are not publicly verified. Detailed information regarding the board of directors, conflict of interest policies, and the separation of audit and decision-making roles is also missing.
Metrics: #2, #3, #4, #5, #7
Score treatment: Limits control and public transparency scores in governance, personnel competence, and Islamic authority.
Boundary: Missing personnel evidence is not proof of invalidity or non-Muslim status.
No formal, independent accreditation verified
No formal, independent accreditation or recognized external oversight of HMS's certification processes was found in the reviewed directories.
Metrics: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11
Score treatment: The assessment relies entirely on direct operational and public evidence of the organization's controls.
Boundary: Lack of accreditation does not invalidate the direct evidence found.
Sources:
Accreditation examined
None · None. None. None. Accredited None; expiry None.
Scope: No current independent accreditation or foreign-authority recognition was verified.
Third-party independence: No independent accreditation exists.
Status factor 0 percent; scope factor 0 percent; independence factor 0 percent; accreditation assurance factor 0 percent.
How USDHS grades organizational accountability
Each metric is 60 percent control assurance, 25 percent operational evidence, and 15 percent public evidence. Government records and other authoritative public sources count even when the certifier does not reproduce them on its own website. A recognized accreditation of the exact entity and scope can support the control layer and part of operational evidence; it never creates public-evidence credit or transfers across entities without the required bridge. 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 operating status
Legal entity, jurisdiction, operating identity, formation, status, address, and required registrations.
84.75% of this metric; 5.08 of 6 weighted points. verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation-derived control assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 85 percent evidence factor; 3.06 points. Non-profit branch of Rahmat-e-Alam Foundation, a registered 501(c)(3) in Illinois. Active certification and monitoring across 26 states. Clearly stated on website and public non-profit registries.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 75 percent evidence factor; 1.13 points. Active certification and monitoring across 26 states.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 100 percent evidence factor; 0.90 points. Clearly stated on website and public non-profit registries.
Metric conclusion: Non-profit branch of Rahmat-e-Alam Foundation, a registered 501(c)(3) in Illinois. Active certification and monitoring across 26 states. Clearly stated on website and public non-profit registries.
2. Ownership and control
Beneficial owners, percentages, controlling persons, governance rights, related parties, and conflicts.
77.25% of this metric; 7.72 of 10 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation-derived control assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 85 percent evidence factor; 5.10 points. Non-profit structure under Shariah Board of America. Consistent non-profit operation. Non-profit status is public, but specific board of directors or trustees details are not clearly listed on the HMS/Rahmat-e-Alam sites.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 75 percent evidence factor; 1.88 points. Consistent non-profit operation.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 0.75 points. Non-profit status is public, but specific board of directors or trustees details are not clearly listed on the HMS/Rahmat-e-Alam sites.
Metric conclusion: Non-profit structure under Shariah Board of America. Consistent non-profit operation. Non-profit status is public, but specific board of directors or trustees details are not clearly listed on the HMS/Rahmat-e-Alam sites.
3. Governance and accountable leadership
Named leadership, governing bodies, organizational structure, management responsibility, and accountable contacts.
25.00% of this metric; 3.50 of 14 weighted points. not verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation-derived control assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 2.10 points. A founder and an independent team of Ulama are described, but the current accountable leadership structure, named decision makers, appointments, assignments, monitoring, and entity-level authority were not independently verified. Limited current activity supports only partial operational evidence.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.88 points. Limited current activity supports only partial operational evidence.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.53 points. Specific named directors and the exact management structure for HMS are missing from public disclosure.
Metric conclusion: A founder and an independent team of Ulama are described, but the current accountable leadership structure, named decision makers, appointments, assignments, monitoring, and entity-level authority were not independently verified. Limited current activity supports only partial operational evidence.
4. Personnel competence and authorization
Auditor, reviewer, technical-expert, and contractor qualifications, training, authorization, monitoring, and assignments.
21.25% of this metric; 3.83 of 18 weighted points. not verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation-derived control assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 2.70 points. The organization claims experienced inspectors and scholars, but their names, qualifications, authorization, assignments, monitoring, and competence records were not publicly established. Current certification activity supports only limited operational evidence.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 1.13 points. Current certification activity supports only limited operational evidence.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. The names, specific qualifications, and assignments of the inspectors and scholars are not publicly verified.
Metric conclusion: The organization claims experienced inspectors and scholars, but their names, qualifications, authorization, assignments, monitoring, and competence records were not publicly established. Current certification activity supports only limited operational evidence.
5. Islamic authority and halal decision
Qualified Islamic-affairs personnel, governing authority, jurisprudential basis, review roles, and final halal decisions.
28.75% of this metric; 5.17 of 18 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation-derived control assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 2.70 points. The connection to a Shariah Board and the stated religious standard are public, but the current individuals making final halal decisions, their qualifications, appointments, review responsibilities, and traceable file authority were not independently verified.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 1.13 points. Limited current activity supports only partial operational evidence.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 1.35 points. The connection to the Shariah Board is clear, but the specific individuals making final halal decisions for HMS certificates are not named.
Metric conclusion: The connection to a Shariah Board and the stated religious standard are public, but the current individuals making final halal decisions, their qualifications, appointments, review responsibilities, and traceable file authority were not independently verified.
6. Halal audit method and facility verification
Application, scope review, documents, on-site work, ingredients, processes, findings, corrections, reports, surveillance, and recertification.
65.75% of this metric; 9.21 of 14 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation-derived control assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 70 percent evidence factor; 5.88 points. The public process describes applications, active monitoring, hand-slaughter controls, and surprise visits. Current listings demonstrate part of the process, but no accreditation, controlled audit file, or authoritative witness record supports the higher operational band.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 1.75 points. Current listings demonstrate part of the process, but no accreditation, controlled audit file, or authoritative witness record supports the higher operational band.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 75 percent evidence factor; 1.57 points. The application process and operational requirements are well-documented publicly.
Metric conclusion: The public process describes applications, active monitoring, hand-slaughter controls, and surprise visits. Current listings demonstrate part of the process, but no accreditation, controlled audit file, or authoritative witness record supports the higher operational band.
7. Impartiality and decision separation
Conflicts, consultancy separation, impartiality oversight, and separation among audit, review, and certification decisions.
25.00% of this metric; 2.00 of 8 weighted points. not verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation-derived control assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 1.20 points. The nonprofit program and certification activity provide limited context, but no formal conflict policy, impartiality mechanism, or separation among inspection, review, and final certification decisions was independently verified.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.50 points. Limited current activity supports only partial operational evidence.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.30 points. While the team is described as independent, there is no published conflict of interest policy or formal mechanism detailing the separation of audit and certification decisions.
Metric conclusion: The nonprofit program and certification activity provide limited context, but no formal conflict policy, impartiality mechanism, or separation among inspection, review, and final certification decisions was independently verified.
8. Standards, scheme, and certification scope
Governing standards, sectors, locations, exclusions, religious positions, certificate scope, and scheme boundaries.
84.75% of this metric; 3.39 of 4 weighted points. verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation-derived control assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 85 percent evidence factor; 2.04 points. Strict hand-slaughtered Zabiha Halal standard, prohibiting machine slaughter. Covers the end-to-end supply chain. Applies standard across 26 states. Standard is very clearly published and defined.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 75 percent evidence factor; 0.75 points. Applies standard across 26 states.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 100 percent evidence factor; 0.60 points. Standard is very clearly published and defined.
Metric conclusion: Strict hand-slaughtered Zabiha Halal standard, prohibiting machine slaughter. Covers the end-to-end supply chain. Applies standard across 26 states. Standard is very clearly published and defined.
9. Certificate traceability and mark control
Current certificate verification, identifiers, holders, sites, products, dates, status changes, and mark misuse controls.
72.00% of this metric; 2.88 of 4 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation-derived control assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 70 percent evidence factor; 1.68 points. Maintains a network of certified businesses and mentions new logo control. Active directory of certified listings and a mobile app. Public directory available, though individual certificate downloads are not standard.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 75 percent evidence factor; 0.75 points. Active directory of certified listings and a mobile app.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 75 percent evidence factor; 0.45 points. Public directory available, though individual certificate downloads are not standard.
Metric conclusion: Maintains a network of certified businesses and mentions new logo control. Active directory of certified listings and a mobile app. Public directory available, though individual certificate downloads are not standard.
10. Complaints, appeals, and corrections
Complaint and appeal routes, timing, independent review, records, corrections, escalation, and non-retaliation.
25.00% of this metric; 0.50 of 2 weighted points. not verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation-derived control assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.30 points. Ticketing and feedback system exists via basic contact forms. However, no formal appeals or complaints procedure or timelines are published.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.13 points. Basic contact mechanisms exist.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.07 points. No formal appeals or complaints procedure or timelines are published.
Metric conclusion: Ticketing and feedback system exists via basic contact forms. However, no formal appeals or complaints procedure or timelines are published.
11. Operating history and demonstrated capacity
Corroborated timeline, current activity, clients, sectors, personnel resources, and workload matched to competent capacity.
91.00% of this metric; 1.82 of 2 weighted points. verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation-derived control assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 85 percent evidence factor; 1.02 points. Operating since 1998/2005 with an extensive network. Hundreds of certified locations across 26 states. History and current capacity are publicly verifiable.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 100 percent evidence factor; 0.50 points. Hundreds of certified locations across 26 states.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 100 percent evidence factor; 0.30 points. History and current capacity are publicly verifiable.
Metric conclusion: Operating since 1998/2005 with an extensive network. Hundreds of certified locations across 26 states. History and current capacity are publicly verifiable.
Part 3
Conclusion
Strongest findings
- Free-of-charge service model significantly reduces financial conflicts of interest.
- Clear, stringent standards requiring hand-slaughtered Zabiha Halal and prohibiting machine slaughter.
- Extensive public directory of certified locations across 26 states.
Material gaps
- No formal, independent accreditation or recognized external oversight.
- Specific names, qualifications, and assignments of the Ulama conducting audits and making certification decisions are not publicly verified.
- Lack of detailed information regarding the board of directors, conflict of interest policies, and the separation of audit and decision-making roles.
Unresolved questions
- Who are the specific individuals making final halal decisions and conducting audits?
Score interpretation
- Raw score: 45.1050. The displayed score uses ordinary rounding.
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.
Conclusion
Halal Monitoring Services operates a free-of-charge certification network grounded in strict hand-slaughtered Zabiha Halal standards. However, no qualifying exact-entity accreditation was verified, and public disclosure of specific personnel and governance structures remains limited, leading to a Grade F (45%) under Methodology 2.4. [2] [3] [4] [5]
Corrections and responsive evidence
Halal Monitoring Services may submit responsive records through the [secure documentary-evidence form](/submit-evidence?article=halal-monitoring-services-accountability-assessment&subject=Halal%20Monitoring%20Services). HIPS assesses material evidence under the same methodology whether it raises or lowers a score.
A submission should identify the exact organization, statement, metric, source, effective dates, scope, responsible people, and requested correction. Publication is not conditional on a response, and no organization has a veto over a documented finding.
This assessment explains public evidence and organizational accountability. It does not replace the controlling HIPS standard, an accreditation or certification decision, a religious ruling, or legal advice.
Frequently asked questions
Why does Halal Monitoring Services receive 45%, Grade F?
Methodology 2.4 gives 64 percent of the score to accountable leadership, qualified personnel, Islamic authority, and halal-specific audit capability. While HMS has clear standards and an extensive network, its specific personnel and governance structures are not publicly verified, and it lacks independent accreditation.
Is Halal Monitoring Services currently accredited?
No current independent accreditation or foreign-authority recognition was verified.
Does a low score mean every certificate is invalid?
No. This assessment measures structural accountability, transparency, and verifiable credentials, not the religious validity of specific products.
Why are private documents not included?
The methodology relies on public records and publicly verifiable evidence, while allowing the organization to submit responsive controlled documents through the secure documentary-evidence form.
How can the certifier improve its score?
Scores can be improved by publishing full ownership details, exact personnel authorizations, and obtaining independent accreditation.