Who was assessed and what accreditation was verified
The certification entity assessed here is the Halal Monitoring Services program of Shariah Board of America / Rahmat-e-Alam Foundation, an Illinois 501(c)(3) nonprofit. [1] [3]
This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization. It therefore relies entirely on direct operational and public evidence of the organization's controls. The review searched the GAC, HAK, JAKIM, MUIS, BPJPH, and EIAC directories.
Halal Industry Exposé · Comprehensive Accountability Assessment
Halal Monitoring Services, a program of Shariah Board of America / Rahmat-e-Alam Foundation Organizational accountability and public certification-criteria disclosure: 10% Credibility Score · Grade F · Insufficiently substantiated
Moderate confidence. Halal Monitoring Services, a program of Shariah Board of America / Rahmat-e-Alam Foundation, receives a 10% Credibility Score (Grade F) under Model B. This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization, so the result relies on the reviewed record of its controls, operations, and public disclosures. The public record provides some supporting evidence, but it does not yet substantiate enough competence or public accountability for a reader to rely on the score alone. Missing public information means only that the reviewed record did not establish the disclosure; it does not prove that an internal control does not exist.
See the three numerical score components
- Competence assurance
- 8.5094 of 90
- Accreditation breadth
- 0.0000 of 4
- Public accountability
- 1.3329 of 6
How to read this result: The score measures what the reviewed evidence supports. Information that was missing or unclear was not treated as proof that a safeguard does not exist. This is not a ruling on every certificate, product, or facility.
USDHS Accreditation-Dominant Credibility Score version 4.1. Source cutoff September 15, 2026. Last reviewed September 15, 2026. Raw Credibility Score 9.8423 out of 100, ordinarily displayed as 10%.
Category breakdown
Where this score came from
Each bar shows how much of that category the reviewed evidence supported. A short bar means important information was missing, unclear, or not independently verified; it does not prove that an internal safeguard does not exist.
- 1. Legal identity and standing 48.00%
- 2. Ownership and control 0.00%
- 3. Accountable leadership and governance 10.76%
- 4. Qualified personnel 0.00%
- 5. Islamic authority and halal decision rights 1.50%
- 6. Halal-specific audit and certification controls 26.47%
- 7. Impartiality, conflicts, and independence 0.00%
- 8. Standards, scheme, and certification scope 6.79%
- 9. Public certification criteria and position disclosure 7.20%
- 10. Certificate traceability and mark control 26.03%
- 11. Complaints, appeals, and corrections 7.41%
- 12. Operating history and demonstrated capacity 16.24%
What stands out
What helps—and what gives us pause
These are the most important positive and cautionary findings in the reviewed record. They explain the score rather than creating extra bonus points or penalties.
What supports confidence
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.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #7
Scoring treatment: Supports operational evidence of impartiality.
Evidence 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.
What needs caution
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.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #2, #3, #4, #5, #7
Scoring treatment: Limits control and public transparency scores in governance, personnel competence, and Islamic authority.
Evidence 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.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #10, #11, #12
Scoring treatment: The assessment relies entirely on direct operational and public evidence of the organization's controls.
Evidence boundary: Lack of accreditation does not invalidate the direct evidence found.
Sources:
How USDHS calculated the score and grade
Model B totals competence assurance from 0 to 90, proportional current exact-entity accreditation breadth from 0 to 4, and public accountability from 0 to 6. A current comprehensive independent exact-entity accreditation establishes competence within verified scope; affirmative contradictions reduce it requirement by requirement. Every qualifying authority contributes 0.8000 breadth points against the five-authority national benchmark, capped at four. Public accountability remains separate. The 137 requirement statuses remain visible as the evidence record. 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.
Detailed evidence
Why each category received its result
1. Legal identity and standing
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether the public can identify the organization behind the certificate and confirm that it is legally connected to the work. 4 checks were fully supported, and 4 checks remained unverified.
48.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
8 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
2.4000 of 5 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.
- Competence contribution
- 2.2500 of 4.5000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.1500 of 0.3000 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Legal identity and standing earns 2.5000 of 5 points. Of 8 enumerated subrequirements, 4 fulfilled, 4 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 48.00 percent: 8 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 2.2500 competence + 0.1500 public accountability = 2.4000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 1.C1 — fulfilled: The certificate issuer is a resolvable legal entity.
Evidence route: Public source. The accepted record establishes HMS as a program of Shariah Board of America / Rahmat-e-Alam Foundation, an Illinois 501(c)(3) nonprofit.
Requirement 1.C2 — fulfilled: The entity is active or otherwise legally authorized to operate.
Evidence route: Public source. The accepted record establishes active certification and monitoring across 26 states.
Requirement 1.C3 — not verified: Every public operating name, DBA, division, or brand used for certification is connected to the issuer.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 1.C4 — not verified: Material parent, subsidiary, affiliate, and predecessor relationships affecting certification authority are documented.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 1.O1 — not verified: Current certificates, contracts, or accreditation identify the same accountable issuer.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 1.O2 — fulfilled: The operating location and jurisdiction correspond to the entity or a documented branch.
Evidence route: Public source. The accepted record establishes the entity as an Illinois 501(c)(3) nonprofit.
Public sources: Source 1
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 1.P1 — fulfilled: The public can identify the accountable issuer and operating name.
Evidence route: Public source. The accepted record establishes that the identity is clearly stated on the website and public non-profit registries.
Requirement 1.P2 — not verified: The website, certificate, and public registry do not present materially conflicting issuer identities.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
2. Ownership and control
What this means in plain English: This category asks who ultimately owns or controls the organization and whether related interests are clearly identified. None of the 9 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.
0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
9 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
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.
- Competence contribution
- 0.0000 of 7.2000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.4800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Ownership and control earns 0.0000 of 8 points. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 9 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 2.C1 — not verified: Ultimate owners or members are identified.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 2.C2 — not verified: Ownership percentages or interests are established.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 2.C3 — not verified: Voting, management, or equivalent control rights are established.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 2.C4 — not verified: Related entities that could affect control are identified.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 2.C5 — not verified: Ownership continuity is established or preserved through istiṣḥāb absent contrary evidence.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 2.O1 — not verified: Ownership and control records are current, maintained, and available to an authorized verifier.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 2.O2 — not verified: No current record contradicts the established owner or control structure.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 2.P1 — not verified: Consumers can identify the controlling person or organization when ownership identity is part of the public accountability standard.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 2.P2 — not verified: Private percentages, taxpayer data, signatures, and personal addresses need not be published when authoritative evidence establishes them.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
3. Accountable leadership and governance
What this means in plain English: This category asks who is responsible for the certification program, how authority is assigned, and who is accountable for its decisions. 2 checks had partial support, and 8 checks remained unverified.
10.76% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
1.5071 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.
- Competence contribution
- 1.5071 of 12.6000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.8400 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Accountable leadership and governance earns 1.4233 of 14 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 2 partial, 8 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 10.76 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 1.5071 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 1.5071 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 3.C1 — partial: Senior leadership is identified.
Evidence route: Public source. A founder and an independent team of Ulama are described, providing partial evidence of senior leadership.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 3.C2 — not verified: Organizational structure and reporting lines are defined.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 3.C3 — not verified: Certification decision authority is assigned.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 3.C4 — not verified: Required governance, impartiality, and Islamic-affairs committees exist.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 3.C5 — not verified: Senior management is accountable for the certification system.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 3.O1 — partial: Governance roles and committees are implemented and reviewed.
Evidence route: Public source. Limited current activity supports only partial operational evidence for governance roles.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 3.O2 — not verified: Certification decisions follow assigned authority.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 3.O3 — not verified: Management review and internal oversight occur.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 3.P1 — not verified: Responsible leadership and principal governance roles are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 3.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who is accountable for halal decisions and certification decisions.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
4. Qualified personnel
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether the people doing audits, reviews, and decisions are identified, qualified, authorized, and kept competent. None of the 14 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.
0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
14 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
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.
- Competence contribution
- 0.0000 of 16.2000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 1.0800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Qualified personnel earns 0.0000 of 18 points. Of 14 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 14 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 14 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 4.C1 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for technical auditors.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 4.C2 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for Islamic-affairs experts.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 4.C3 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for reviewers and decision makers.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 4.C4 — not verified: Muslim-status requirements are applied where the governing standard requires them.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 4.C5 — not verified: Training, education, experience, and sector competence are defined.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 4.C6 — not verified: Authorization, assignment, monitoring, and performance review are controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 4.C7 — not verified: External personnel and contractors satisfy the same applicable requirements.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 4.O1 — not verified: Current personnel records demonstrate qualification and authorization.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 4.O2 — not verified: Audit teams contain the required technical and Islamic expertise.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 4.O3 — not verified: Assignments match sector and scope competence.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 4.O4 — not verified: Personnel performance and continuing competence are monitored.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 4.P1 — not verified: Responsible personnel roles are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 4.P2 — not verified: A reasonable public qualification basis is available for principal technical and Islamic authorities.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 4.P3 — not verified: Private personnel files, degree numbers, and every assignment record need not be published when accreditation verifies competence.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
5. Islamic authority and halal decision rights
What this means in plain English: This category asks who provides the Islamic review, what authority that person or body has, and who makes the final halal decision. 1 check had partial support, and 10 checks remained unverified.
1.50% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
11 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.2700 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.
- Competence contribution
- 0.0000 of 16.2000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.2700 of 1.0800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Islamic authority and halal decision rights earns 0.6750 of 18 points. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 1 partial, 10 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 1.50 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.2700 public accountability = 0.2700 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 5.C1 — not verified: Qualified Muslim Islamic-affairs experts are appointed.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 5.C2 — not verified: Muslim decision makers are used where required.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 5.C3 — not verified: The Islamic-affairs committee has defined composition and authority.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 5.C4 — not verified: Halal interpretations, disputed questions, and escalations have a controlled decision path.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 5.C5 — not verified: Islamic authority is independent of sales and client pressure.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 5.C6 — not verified: Final halal and certification decision rights are unambiguous.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 5.O1 — not verified: Islamic experts participate in audit, review, and decision functions as required.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 5.O2 — not verified: Committee or expert decisions are documented and implemented.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 5.O3 — not verified: Certification cannot be issued contrary to the authorized halal decision.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 5.P1 — partial: The principal Islamic authority or committee is publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Public source. The connection to the Shariah Board is clear and publicly identifiable, but specific individuals making final halal decisions are not named.
Requirement 5.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who has final halal-decision authority.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
6. Halal-specific audit and certification controls
What this means in plain English: This category asks what the certifier actually checks, what halal-specific evidence it records, and how findings lead to approval, follow-up, or withdrawal. 4 checks were fully supported, 1 check had partial support, and 10 checks remained unverified.
26.47% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
15 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
3.7059 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.
- Competence contribution
- 3.2859 of 12.6000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.4200 of 0.8400 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Halal-specific audit and certification controls earns 4.1533 of 14 points. Of 15 enumerated subrequirements, 4 fulfilled, 1 partial, 10 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 26.47 percent: 15 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 3.2859 competence + 0.4200 public accountability = 3.7059 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 6.C1 — fulfilled: Application and application review are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. The accepted finding notes the public process describes applications. The accepted article notes the Processor Application.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 6.C2 — not verified: The audit program and audit time are determined by scope, risk, complexity, sites, and prior results.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 6.C3 — not verified: Stage-one and stage-two audits are used where applicable.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 6.C4 — fulfilled: Audit teams perform halal-specific document and facility review.
Evidence route: Public source. The accepted article notes ingredients and processes of all products/menu items are fully inspected.
Requirement 6.C5 — not verified: Sampling, inspection, and accredited laboratory testing are controlled where applicable.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 6.C6 — not verified: Audit reports and nonconformities are documented.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 6.C7 — not verified: Independent review and certification decisions are controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 6.C8 — fulfilled: Surveillance and recertification are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. The accepted finding notes the public process describes active monitoring and surprise visits.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 6.C9 — not verified: Suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 6.C10 — not verified: Outsourced work remains under HCB responsibility.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 6.O1 — partial: The current certification system implements each applicable control.
Evidence route: Public source. Current listings demonstrate part of the process, but no controlled audit file supports the higher operational band.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 6.O2 — not verified: Surveillance or accreditation assessment verifies continued implementation.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 6.O3 — not verified: No affirmative evidence shows reliance on an unauthorized third party for the halal decision.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 6.P1 — fulfilled: The certification pathway and principal stages are publicly understandable.
Evidence route: Public source. The application process and operational requirements are well-documented publicly.
Requirement 6.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the governing scheme and certificate status consequences.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
7. Impartiality, conflicts, and independence
What this means in plain English: This category asks how the organization prevents commercial interests, consulting work, or personal conflicts from controlling certification decisions. None of the 11 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.
0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
11 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
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.
- Competence contribution
- 0.0000 of 5.4000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.3600 points.
Recorded category 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 status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 7.C1 — not verified: An impartiality policy and risk process exist.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 7.C2 — not verified: An impartiality committee or equivalent mechanism operates.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 7.C3 — not verified: Consulting and certification conflicts are prohibited or controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 7.C4 — not verified: Financial, commercial, and relationship threats are identified and mitigated.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 7.C5 — not verified: Recusal and independent decision rules exist.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 7.C6 — not verified: Outsourced and external personnel are subject to impartiality and confidentiality controls.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 7.O1 — not verified: Impartiality risks are reviewed periodically.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 7.O2 — not verified: Conflicts and recusals are documented.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 7.O3 — not verified: Certification decisions remain independent of audit, sales, and consulting pressure.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 7.P1 — not verified: The impartiality commitment and complaint route are publicly accessible.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 7.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the separation between certification and prohibited consulting.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
8. Standards, scheme, and certification scope
What this means in plain English: This category asks which current rules govern the certification, what products and facilities they cover, and where the limits or exclusions are. 2 checks had partial support, and 8 checks remained unverified.
6.79% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.2038 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.
- Competence contribution
- 0.1588 of 2.7000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0450 of 0.1800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Standards, scheme, and certification scope earns 0.2625 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 2 partial, 8 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 6.79 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.1588 competence + 0.0450 public accountability = 0.2038 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 8.C1 — not verified: Governing standard names and versions are controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 8.C2 — partial: Accredited or claimed categories, activities, products, sites, and locations are defined.
Evidence route: Public source. Scope includes slaughterhouses, processors, distributors, retail stores, restaurants, caterers, etc. Applies standard across 26 states.
Requirement 8.C3 — not verified: Exclusions and limitations are defined.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 8.C4 — not verified: Supplementary destination-market schemes are controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 8.C5 — not verified: A precedence rule resolves conflicts between base and supplementary requirements.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 8.C6 — not verified: Clients receive the applicable version and scope.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 8.O1 — not verified: Certificates and audits use the correct current standard and scope.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 8.O2 — not verified: Scope changes and version changes are controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 8.P1 — partial: The principal standard, version, category, and certification scope are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Public source. Standard is very clearly published and defined (strict hand-slaughtered Zabiha Halal). However, no specific version or effective date is provided.
Requirement 8.P2 — not verified: The public can determine whether supplementary schemes apply and how conflicts are resolved.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
9. Public certification criteria and position disclosure
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether an ordinary reader can find the certifier’s practical halal rules and understand the positions behind its approvals. 6 checks were fully supported, 2 checks had partial support, and 12 checks remained unverified.
7.20% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
20 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.5758 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.
- Competence contribution
- 0.3529 of 7.2000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.2229 of 0.4800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Public certification criteria and position disclosure earns 0.8905 of 8 points. Of 20 enumerated subrequirements, 6 fulfilled, 2 partial, 12 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 7.20 percent: 20 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.3529 competence + 0.2229 public accountability = 0.5758 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 9.C1 — not verified: The public disclosure is authorized, versioned, dated, and controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 9.C2 — not verified: It identifies the governing Islamic and technical authority.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 9.C3 — not verified: It addresses every applicable Form 1002-D field or marks it not applicable.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 9.O1 — partial: Public criteria match the operative certification scheme.
Evidence route: Public source. Scope includes slaughterhouses, processors, distributors, retail stores, restaurants, caterers, etc; Provides a public directory to verify certified businesses.
Requirement 9.O2 — not verified: Changes to criteria are reflected in the controlled public version.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 9.O3 — not verified: Supplementary-scheme positions and precedence are kept current.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 9.P1 — not verified: Religious or jurisprudential basis.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 9.P2 — not verified: Supplementary destination-market schemes and precedence.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 9.P3 — fulfilled: Mechanical poultry slaughter.
Evidence route: Public source. HMS does not certify any machine-slaughtered meat.
Requirement 9.P4 — fulfilled: Mechanical-line tasmiyah.
Evidence route: Public source. Since mechanical slaughter is not certified, tasmiyyah rules for mechanical lines are not applicable.
Requirement 9.P5 — partial: Slaughter-person requirements and supervision.
Evidence route: Public source. The Zabiha Halal page allows Muslims or Believing Ahlul Kitab, but the Processor Application strictly requires Sunni Muslim slaughterers.
Requirement 9.P6 — not verified: Stunning and reversibility.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 9.P7 — not verified: Alive-at-cut control.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 9.P8 — fulfilled: Minimum vessel requirement.
Evidence route: Public source. At least three out of the four main veins of the throat must be cut.
Requirement 9.P9 — fulfilled: Pork and animal derivatives.
Evidence route: Public source. Pork and carrion (maitah) are strictly haram.
Requirement 9.P10 — not verified: Alcohol and ethanol.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 9.P11 — fulfilled: Processing aids and ingredient sources.
Evidence route: Public source. Ingredients and processes of all products/menu items are fully inspected to ensure purely Halal.
Requirement 9.P12 — fulfilled: Shared lines and cross-contact.
Evidence route: Public source. Mixing with non-certified meat at any level of the supply is prohibited.
Requirement 9.P13 — not verified: Sanitation or ritual cleansing.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 9.P14 — not verified: Certificate-level position communication.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
10. Certificate traceability and mark control
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether a certificate can be checked for its holder, site, scope, dates, and current status, and whether misuse of the mark is controlled. 3 checks were fully supported, 1 check had partial support, and 6 checks remained unverified.
26.03% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.7809 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.
- Competence contribution
- 0.6459 of 2.7000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.1350 of 0.1800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Certificate traceability and mark control earns 0.9475 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 3 fulfilled, 1 partial, 6 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 26.03 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.6459 competence + 0.1350 public accountability = 0.7809 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
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: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 10.C2 — fulfilled: A certified-client and product directory is controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. Maintains an active directory of certified listings and a mobile app.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 10.C3 — not verified: Certificate status, renewal, suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 10.C4 — not verified: Halal-mark licensing, display, reproduction, translation, and misuse are controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 10.C5 — not verified: Verification records are traceable to the exact certificate and issuer.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 10.O1 — not verified: Certificates and marks are monitored in use.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 10.O2 — not verified: Misuse and expired status are acted upon.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 10.O3 — fulfilled: Directory and status records are maintained.
Evidence route: Public source. Maintains an active directory of certified listings.
Public sources: Source 1
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 10.P1 — fulfilled: Consumers can verify current certificate status through a working HTTPS route, searchable directory, QR destination, or equivalent accessible mechanism.
Evidence route: Public source. Public directory is available to verify certified businesses.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 10.P2 — partial: Public verification shows enough information to distinguish holder, scope, site or product, identifier, and validity.
Evidence route: Public source. Public directory available but individual certificate downloads are not standard.
Public sources: Source 1
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
11. Complaints, appeals, and corrections
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether people can challenge a decision, report a problem, receive an independent review, and see appropriate corrective action. 3 checks had partial support, and 7 checks remained unverified.
7.41% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0741 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.
- Competence contribution
- 0.0441 of 0.9000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0300 of 0.0600 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Complaints, appeals, and corrections earns 0.1167 of 1 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 3 partial, 7 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 7.41 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0441 competence + 0.0300 public accountability = 0.0741 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 11.C1 — not verified: Complaints and appeals have documented procedures.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 11.C2 — not verified: Independent committee or reviewer requirements are defined.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 11.C3 — not verified: Islamic-affairs expertise participates where required.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 11.C4 — not verified: Investigation, decision, communication, corrective action, and records are controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 11.C5 — not verified: Conflicts and recusals are controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 11.O1 — partial: The mechanism is implemented and reviewed.
Evidence route: Public source. Basic contact mechanisms exist via ticketing and feedback system.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 11.O2 — not verified: Complainants and appellants are informed of outcomes.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 11.O3 — not verified: Valid complaints can trigger investigation and certificate action.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 11.P1 — partial: A working public route or contact method exists for complaints and appeals.
Evidence route: Public source. Ticketing and feedback system exists via basic contact forms.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 11.P2 — partial: The submission pathway and responsible organization are clear.
Evidence route: Public source. Basic contact forms are available for the organization.
Public sources: Source 1
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
12. Operating history and demonstrated capacity
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether the organization has a verifiable operating record and enough qualified people and resources for the certification work it claims to perform. 2 checks were fully supported, 1 check had partial support, and 6 checks remained unverified.
16.24% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
9 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.3247 of 2 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.
- Competence contribution
- 0.2647 of 1.8000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0600 of 0.1200 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Operating history and demonstrated capacity earns 0.4000 of 2 points. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 2 fulfilled, 1 partial, 6 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 16.24 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.2647 competence + 0.0600 public accountability = 0.3247 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 12.C1 — not verified: The HCB defines competence and resource needs for each scope.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 12.C2 — not verified: Audit time, staffing, sites, shifts, categories, and workload are considered.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 12.C3 — not verified: External resources and outsourcing are controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Requirement 12.C4 — not verified: Records, internal audits, management review, and corrective action support continued delivery.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 12.O1 — partial: Current accreditation or direct evidence verifies active delivery capacity within scope.
Evidence route: Public source. Operating since 1998/2005 with an extensive network of hundreds of certified locations across 26 states, verifying active delivery capacity within scope.
Requirement 12.O2 — fulfilled: Current certificates or clients demonstrate active operations.
Evidence route: Public source. Hundreds of certified locations across 26 states, with a public directory to verify certified businesses.
Requirement 12.O3 — not verified: Surveillance, recertification, and management review maintain capacity.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 12.P1 — fulfilled: Operating history, current service scope, and accountable contact are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Public source. Operating history and current capacity are publicly verifiable through its website and directory.
Requirement 12.P2 — not verified: Confidential client volumes, payroll, and workload files need not be published when current accreditation verifies capacity.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. No exact source URL provided in the package to verify this requirement.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
Bottom line
What you should know
What the evidence supports
- Legal identity and operating status had the strongest, though still incomplete, support in the reviewed record.
- The review found limited support for certificate traceability and controls over use of the certification mark.
- The review found limited support for halal-specific audit and certification controls.
What should make you cautious
- The reviewed record did not establish important information about qualified personnel.
- The reviewed record did not establish important information about Islamic authority and halal decision rights.
- The reviewed record did not establish important information about accountable leadership and governance.
What evidence could change this view
- What current, verifiable records would clarify ownership and control?
- What current, verifiable records would clarify qualified personnel?
- What current, verifiable records would clarify impartiality, conflicts, and independence?
View the original requirement-level questions
- What independently verifiable evidence could show that every public operating name, DBA, division, or brand used for certification is connected to the issuer?
- What independently verifiable evidence could document parent, subsidiary, affiliate, and predecessor relationships that affect certification authority?
- What current certificates, contracts, or accreditation records could identify the same accountable issuer?
- What independently verifiable evidence could show that the website, certificate, and public registry do not present materially conflicting issuer identities?
- What independently verifiable evidence could identify the ultimate owners or members?
- What independently verifiable evidence could establish ownership percentages or interests?
Credibility Score interpretation
- Model B assigns 8.5094 of 90 competence-assurance points, 0.0000 of 4 proportional accreditation-breadth points, and 1.3329 of 6 public-accountability points.
- No qualifying current comprehensive exact-entity accreditation was applied; competence is normalized from the same control and operational requirement evidence used across the national set, and accreditation breadth is zero.
- Recognition, commercial approval, membership, affiliate credentials, expired credentials, and scope that does not cover the assessed work do not qualify as current exact-entity accreditation breadth.
- Missing public information means the reviewed public record did not establish the disclosure; it is not proof that an undisclosed internal control does not exist.
Material records are rescored under the same rules, whether they raise or lower the result. Privately share information or evidence. Evidence-source names and contact details are not exposed publicly. An authorized representative may separately 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.
Read the full legal and evidence boundary
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.
Conclusion
Halal Monitoring Services operates a free-of-charge certification network based on strict hand-slaughtered Zabiha Halal standards. However, no qualifying current independent accreditation was verified, and public disclosure of specific personnel and governance arrangements remains limited. Those gaps are the main reasons for the 10% score and Grade F. [2] [3] [4] [5]
This accountability assessment uses the published USDHS methodology as a framework for reviewing evidence. It does not replace the controlling HIPS standard or make a religious ruling about every certificate or product.
Public standards and certification information
This disclosure review asks a question separate from accreditation: can an ordinary consumer identify the standard or scheme used, its current version, the authority that approved it, and the material halal positions that guide this body's certifications? The public material is fragmented, stale, difficult to find, or insufficient to establish the complete position currently in force.
The reviewed sources establish the following about governing documents, scope, and certificate communication: the scope includes slaughterhouses, processors, distributors, retail stores, restaurants, caterers, and other settings; and there is a public directory for checking certified businesses. [4] [7]
The remaining questions could not be classified with confidence because they were not sufficiently disclosed. No specific governing standard or criteria set is named beyond 'principles of Zabiha Halal'; no public standard includes a version or effective date; the program operates under Shariah Board of America (Rahmat-e-Alam Foundation) but does not publicly state a specific madhab (school of Islamic legal interpretation) or multi-madhab basis; no supplementary schemes or order of precedence are publicly disclosed; and it is not disclosed whether material religious positions are printed on certificates. This is a limit of the public evidence and does not prove that the body has no internal rule.
The reviewed sources establish the following about slaughter and poultry controls: HMS does not certify machine-slaughtered meat; because mechanical slaughter is not certified, tasmiyyah (pronouncing God's name) rules for mechanical lines do not apply; at least three of the four main veins of the throat must be cut; and the Zabiha Halal page allows Muslims or Believing Ahlul Kitab (People of the Book), while the Processor Application strictly requires Sunni Muslim slaughterers. [11] [7] [10]
The remaining slaughter and poultry questions could not be classified with confidence because the public website does not explicitly state a position on stunning and does not give specific controls for death before cut. This is a limit of the public evidence and does not prove that the body has no internal rule.
The reviewed sources establish the following about ingredients and the production environment: pork and carrion (maitah) are strictly haram; the ingredients and processes for all products or menu items are fully inspected to ensure they are purely Halal; and mixing with non-certified meat at any point in the supply chain is prohibited. [9] [3]
The remaining ingredients and production-environment questions could not be classified with confidence. No specific public position on alcohol or ethanol limits is disclosed, and no specific sanitation or ritual-cleansing procedures are publicly detailed. This is a limit of the public evidence and does not prove that the body has no internal rule.
This review examines whether the position is publicly understandable, not whether it is the most restrictive position. A disclosed position within a recognized scholarly range is not treated negatively merely because another body follows a different view.
What evidence would change the remaining deductions
This section describes the evidence that could support a higher score for Halal Monitoring Services. It does not mean a control is absent simply because the reviewed public record did not establish it. Any submission must match the exact assessed entity, state its dates and scope, and identify who was responsible for implementation and decision-making.
Qualifying records can be public or submitted privately through the secure evidence pathway. Private records can support assurance about controls or operations when they can be authenticated, but they do not earn 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 Halal Monitoring Services 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 (a document whose authority and current version can be verified) for Halal Monitoring Services 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 Halal Monitoring Services governing-body roster and organogram (organization chart) identifying accountable leaders, their roles, the basis for their appointment or authority, management responsibilities, and entity-level accountability for certification decisions.
- Metric 4 — Personnel competence and authorization: A current Halal Monitoring Services 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 Halal Monitoring Services records identifying the Islamic-affairs experts or decision body, their qualifications and appointment, the 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 Halal Monitoring Services audit procedure and corroborating recent files showing application and scope review, ingredient and process evaluation, on-site work, halal-specific observations, findings, corrective actions, reports, surveillance, and recertification.
- Metric 7 — Impartiality and decision separation: A current Halal Monitoring Services policy on impartiality and separating decisions, together with 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 Halal Monitoring Services standard or scheme record identifying its 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 Halal Monitoring Services 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 Halal Monitoring Services certificate directory or verification method showing the certificate identifier, holder, site, products or scope, effective and expiry dates, live status, suspension or withdrawal, and enforceable controls for mark use and misuse.
- Metric 11 — Complaints, appeals, and corrections: A current public Halal Monitoring Services procedure for complaints, appeals, and corrections 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 Halal Monitoring Services operating records showing its timeline, active clients or certificates, sectors and locations served, workload, surveillance activity, and competent personnel capacity matched to that workload.
Corrections, appeals, and claiming this certification body
Halal Monitoring Services, a program of Shariah Board of America / Rahmat-e-Alam Foundation, 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 can also use Claim this certification body. The claimant must document their identity, role, and authority to act for the exact assessed entity. That authority must be verified through qualifying documentation and an independently confirmable official contact channel. A claim stays private and pending until review; it does not give the claimant editorial control, reveal 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 does not depend on a response, and no organization has a private veto over a documented finding.
Frequently asked questions
Why did Halal Monitoring Services receive a low score and Grade F?
The review gives its greatest weight to the controls that show whether a certifier can do the work responsibly: accountable leadership, qualified personnel, Islamic authority, and halal-specific audit capability. HMS has clear standards and an extensive network, but the reviewed public record does not verify its specific personnel and governance arrangements, and no current independent accreditation was verified.
Is Halal Monitoring Services currently accredited?
This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization.
Does a low score mean that every certificate is invalid?
No. This assessment examines structural accountability, transparency, and verifiable credentials. It does not decide the religious validity of particular products.
Why does the review not include private documents?
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 could the certifier improve its score?
The score could improve if the organization publishes full ownership details and exact personnel authorizations, and obtains independent accreditation.
References
View the controlling HIPS publication