Hijrah Ranch LLC Halal Certification program Comprehensive Accountability Assessment: 27% Credibility Score, Grade F

A halal mark should explain the rules behind the approval

Consumers relying on halal labels require assurance that the certification body maintains independent oversight, transparent standards, and a traceable system for verifying product claims. Without these controls, the integrity of the halal supply chain remains vulnerable to unverified practices and conflicts of interest [1].

Hijrah Ranch LLC operates a halal certification program based in Waskom, Texas, offering services to businesses in Texas and Louisiana [1]. The program outlines a five-step certification process that includes a Halal Assurance Plan and on-site reviews [1].

Who Hijrah Ranch Halal Certification is

Hijrah Ranch LLC is a co-owned entity operated by Salwa Rahman and Emad Husni Taysir Alsidawi [1]. The organization claims to provide halal certification services to facilities in the region, emphasizing requirements such as a Muslim slaughterperson and the correct invocation (Tasmiyah) for each animal [2].

Despite its stated operational scope, the program's broader governance structure, independent certification decision mechanism, and personnel qualifications are not publicly established [1]. Furthermore, no current exact-entity accreditation by a recognized oversight body was independently verified.

Halal Industry Exposé · Comprehensive Accountability Assessment

Hijrah Ranch LLC Halal Certification program Organizational accountability and public certification-criteria disclosure: 27% Credibility Score · Grade F · Insufficiently substantiated

Limited confidence. Hijrah Ranch Halal Certification receives a Credibility Score of 27%, Grade F. Hijrah Ranch LLC operates a halal certification program in Texas and Louisiana with a stated focus on proper invocation and complete separation from non-halal products. However, the program lacks a publicly documented governance structure, independent Islamic authority, and a verified mechanism for tracing active certificates.

This organizational accountability assessment measures the evidence supporting identity, control, responsible people, Islamic authority, halal-specific work, standards, public certification criteria, certificate controls, correction access, and demonstrated operations. 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 2.5. Source cutoff September 13, 2026. Last reviewed September 14, 2026. Raw Credibility Score 26.8125 out of 100, ordinarily displayed as 27%.

How USDHS calculates the Credibility Score

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. 1. Legal identity and operating status

   Legal entity, jurisdiction, operating identity, formation, status, address, and required registrations.

   43.75% of this metric; 2.19 of 5 weighted points. partially verified.

   Accreditation effect: No current recognized exact-entity accreditation was verified; only direct evidence is scored.

   A. Control assurance, 60 percent

   50 percent evidence factor; 1.50 points. The public site identifies the Texas LLC program and service area, but no authoritative current registry extract or recent certificate was located.

   B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

   25 percent evidence factor; 0.31 points. The public site identifies the Texas LLC program and service area, but no authoritative current registry extract or recent certificate was located.

   C. Public evidence, 15 percent

   50 percent evidence factor; 0.38 points. The public site identifies the Texas LLC program and service area, but no authoritative current registry extract or recent certificate was located.

   Metric conclusion: The public site identifies the Texas LLC program and service area, but no authoritative current registry extract or recent certificate was located.

2. 2. Ownership and control

   Beneficial owners, percentages, controlling persons, governance rights, related parties, and conflicts.

   43.75% of this metric; 3.50 of 8 weighted points. partially verified.

   Accreditation effect: No current recognized exact-entity accreditation was verified; only direct evidence is scored.

   A. Control assurance, 60 percent

   50 percent evidence factor; 2.40 points. Two co-owners are publicly named, while ownership percentages and complete control rights are not established.

   B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

   25 percent evidence factor; 0.50 points. Two co-owners are publicly named, while ownership percentages and complete control rights are not established.

   C. Public evidence, 15 percent

   50 percent evidence factor; 0.60 points. Two co-owners are publicly named, while ownership percentages and complete control rights are not established.

   Metric conclusion: Two co-owners are publicly named, while ownership percentages and complete control rights are not established.

3. 3. Governance and accountable leadership

   Named leadership, governing bodies, organizational structure, management responsibility, and accountable contacts.

   43.75% of this metric; 6.13 of 14 weighted points. partially verified.

   Accreditation effect: No current recognized exact-entity accreditation was verified; only direct evidence is scored.

   A. Control assurance, 60 percent

   50 percent evidence factor; 4.20 points. The co-owners are identified as operators, but no broader governance, appointments, or certification decision structure is public.

   B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

   25 percent evidence factor; 0.88 points. The co-owners are identified as operators, but no broader governance, appointments, or certification decision structure is public.

   C. Public evidence, 15 percent

   50 percent evidence factor; 1.05 points. The co-owners are identified as operators, but no broader governance, appointments, or certification decision structure is public.

   Metric conclusion: The co-owners are identified as operators, but no broader governance, appointments, or certification decision structure is public.

4. 4. Personnel competence and authorization

   Auditor, reviewer, technical-expert, and contractor qualifications, training, authorization, monitoring, and assignments.

   18.75% of this metric; 3.38 of 18 weighted points. unverified.

   Accreditation effect: No current recognized exact-entity accreditation was verified; only direct evidence is scored.

   A. Control assurance, 60 percent

   25 percent evidence factor; 2.70 points. The process refers to a trained auditor without identifying qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.

   B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

   0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. The process refers to a trained auditor without identifying qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.

   C. Public evidence, 15 percent

   25 percent evidence factor; 0.68 points. The process refers to a trained auditor without identifying qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.

   Metric conclusion: The process refers to a trained auditor without identifying qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.

5. 5. Islamic authority and halal decision

   Qualified Islamic-affairs personnel, governing authority, jurisprudential basis, review roles, and final halal decisions.

   18.75% of this metric; 3.38 of 18 weighted points. unverified.

   Accreditation effect: No current recognized exact-entity accreditation was verified; only direct evidence is scored.

   A. Control assurance, 60 percent

   25 percent evidence factor; 2.70 points. Basic Islamic slaughter requirements are stated, but no named qualified religious authority or final halal decision mechanism is public.

   B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

   0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. Basic Islamic slaughter requirements are stated, but no named qualified religious authority or final halal decision mechanism is public.

   C. Public evidence, 15 percent

   25 percent evidence factor; 0.68 points. Basic Islamic slaughter requirements are stated, but no named qualified religious authority or final halal decision mechanism is public.

   Metric conclusion: Basic Islamic slaughter requirements are stated, but no named qualified religious authority or final halal decision mechanism is public.

6. 6. Halal audit method and facility verification

   Application, scope review, documents, on-site work, ingredients, processes, findings, corrections, reports, surveillance, and recertification.

   37.50% of this metric; 5.25 of 14 weighted points. unverified.

   Accreditation effect: No current recognized exact-entity accreditation was verified; only direct evidence is scored.

   A. Control assurance, 60 percent

   50 percent evidence factor; 4.20 points. A five-step process includes a Halal Assurance Plan, on-site review, segregation, sanitation, records, and periodic unannounced audits; no operational certificate sample was located.

   B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

   0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. A five-step process includes a Halal Assurance Plan, on-site review, segregation, sanitation, records, and periodic unannounced audits; no operational certificate sample was located.

   C. Public evidence, 15 percent

   50 percent evidence factor; 1.05 points. A five-step process includes a Halal Assurance Plan, on-site review, segregation, sanitation, records, and periodic unannounced audits; no operational certificate sample was located.

   Metric conclusion: A five-step process includes a Halal Assurance Plan, on-site review, segregation, sanitation, records, and periodic unannounced audits; no operational certificate sample was located.

7. 7. Impartiality and decision separation

   Conflict-of-interest controls, independent review, decision separation, and impartial governance.

   0.00% of this metric; 0.00 of 6 weighted points. unverified.

   Accreditation effect: No current recognized exact-entity accreditation was verified; only direct evidence is scored.

   A. Control assurance, 60 percent

   0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. No public conflict, review independence, or audit-to-decision separation controls were located.

   B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

   0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. No public conflict, review independence, or audit-to-decision separation controls were located.

   C. Public evidence, 15 percent

   0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. No public conflict, review independence, or audit-to-decision separation controls were located.

   Metric conclusion: No public conflict, review independence, or audit-to-decision separation controls were located.

8. 8. Standards, scheme, and certification scope

   Adopted standards, recognized schemes, scope boundaries, and correct application of requirements.

   18.75% of this metric; 0.56 of 3 weighted points. unverified.

   Accreditation effect: No current recognized exact-entity accreditation was verified; only direct evidence is scored.

   A. Control assurance, 60 percent

   25 percent evidence factor; 0.45 points. General certification scope and core rules are stated without a named, versioned standard or complete scheme boundaries.

   B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

   0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. General certification scope and core rules are stated without a named, versioned standard or complete scheme boundaries.

   C. Public evidence, 15 percent

   25 percent evidence factor; 0.11 points. General certification scope and core rules are stated without a named, versioned standard or complete scheme boundaries.

   Metric conclusion: General certification scope and core rules are stated without a named, versioned standard or complete scheme boundaries.

9. 9. Public certification criteria and position disclosure

   A current, intelligible public account of the governing standard, decision criteria, religious positions, scope, exclusions, authority, versioning, and change control.

   18.75% of this metric; 1.50 of 8 weighted points. unverified.

   Accreditation effect: No current recognized exact-entity accreditation was verified; only direct evidence is scored.

   A. Control assurance, 60 percent

   25 percent evidence factor; 1.20 points. A short public criteria summary answers selected questions but omits the comprehensive declaration inventory and publication controls.

   B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

   0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. A short public criteria summary answers selected questions but omits the comprehensive declaration inventory and publication controls.

   C. Public evidence, 15 percent

   25 percent evidence factor; 0.30 points. A short public criteria summary answers selected questions but omits the comprehensive declaration inventory and publication controls.

   Metric conclusion: A short public criteria summary answers selected questions but omits the comprehensive declaration inventory and publication controls.

10. 10. Certificate traceability and mark control

    Certificate issuance, unique identifiers, public directories, mark usage rules, scope, validity, and status tracking.

    18.75% of this metric; 0.56 of 3 weighted points. unverified.

    Accreditation effect: No current recognized exact-entity accreditation was verified; only direct evidence is scored.

    A. Control assurance, 60 percent

    25 percent evidence factor; 0.45 points. One-year validity is stated, but no public certificate sample, directory, or status mechanism was located.

    B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

    0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. One-year validity is stated, but no public certificate sample, directory, or status mechanism was located.

    C. Public evidence, 15 percent

    25 percent evidence factor; 0.11 points. One-year validity is stated, but no public certificate sample, directory, or status mechanism was located.

    Metric conclusion: One-year validity is stated, but no public certificate sample, directory, or status mechanism was located.

11. 11. Complaints, appeals, and corrections

    Complaint handling, appeal independence, investigation, corrective action, and public transparency.

    0.00% of this metric; 0.00 of 1 weighted points. unverified.

    Accreditation effect: No current recognized exact-entity accreditation was verified; only direct evidence is scored.

    A. Control assurance, 60 percent

    0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. No public complaint, appeal, or correction procedure was located.

    B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

    0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. No public complaint, appeal, or correction procedure was located.

    C. Public evidence, 15 percent

    0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. No public complaint, appeal, or correction procedure was located.

    Metric conclusion: No public complaint, appeal, or correction procedure was located.

12. 12. Operating history and demonstrated capacity

    Years in operation, continuous certification activity, current certificates, sector coverage, resources, and workload capacity.

    18.75% of this metric; 0.38 of 2 weighted points. unverified.

    Accreditation effect: No current recognized exact-entity accreditation was verified; only direct evidence is scored.

    A. Control assurance, 60 percent

    25 percent evidence factor; 0.30 points. The program offers service in Texas and Louisiana, but operating history, certificate output, and resource capacity are not independently demonstrated.

    B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

    0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. The program offers service in Texas and Louisiana, but operating history, certificate output, and resource capacity are not independently demonstrated.

    C. Public evidence, 15 percent

    25 percent evidence factor; 0.07 points. The program offers service in Texas and Louisiana, but operating history, certificate output, and resource capacity are not independently demonstrated.

    Metric conclusion: The program offers service in Texas and Louisiana, but operating history, certificate output, and resource capacity are not independently demonstrated.

Credibility Score interpretation

• The raw Credibility Score is 26.8125 out of 100 and is ordinarily rounded to 27%.
• The four responsible-person and core halal-control metrics earned 18.1250 of 64 points, or 28.32%.
• The Grade and evidence confidence are separate: the Grade follows the rounded Credibility Score, while confidence describes how firmly the available record supports that result.
• Red and green flags summarize evidence already reflected in the twelve metric factors; they do not add or subtract separate 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 assessment focuses on the halal certification program operated by Hijrah Ranch LLC in Texas [1]. The scope includes the organization's published standards, certification processes, and stated requirements for facilities seeking its halal approval [1] [2].

The program's operating history, certificate output, and resource capacity are not independently demonstrated [1]. Additionally, no public certificate directory or mechanism for verifying the status of active clients was located, limiting the ability to confirm its current certification reach [1].

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

Hijrah Ranch LLC publicly discloses certain core requirements for its halal certification, notably requiring a Muslim slaughterperson and the correct invocation (Tasmiyah) for each animal [2]. The program also requires complete separation from non-halal products [2].

The certification process involves an on-site facility audit to observe the slaughter process, verify the Halal Assurance Plan, check for segregation and sanitation, and review record-keeping [1]. The program describes this audit as a collaborative review rather than a strict inspection [1].

However, the organization does not publish a comprehensive, version-controlled standard or scheme document [1]. Specific positions on mechanical poultry slaughter, tasmiyyah on mechanical lines, stunning and reversibility, alive-at-cut controls, and the use of processing aids are not publicly disclosed [1].

Furthermore, the program's public materials do not establish an independent religious authority responsible for final halal decisions [1]. The separation between the audit function and the final certification decision is also not publicly established [1].

Credibility Score and evidence-bounded conclusion

The Hijrah Ranch LLC Halal Certification program outlines basic halal requirements and a facility review process but lacks the structural transparency necessary for a highly credible certification body [1] [2]. The reviewed public record did not establish a comprehensive published standard, independent governance controls, or publicly verifiable certificate traceability for the program [1].

To improve its standing, the organization must establish and publish a clear governance structure, separate its audit and decision-making functions, and provide a public mechanism for consumers to verify the validity of its issued certificates [1].

Corrections, appeals, and claiming this certification body

Hijrah Ranch LLC Halal Certification program or another affected party may submit responsive records through the [secure documentary-evidence form](/submit-evidence?subject=Hijrah%20Ranch%20LLC%20Halal%20Certification%20program&article=https%3A%2F%2Fhalalstandards.org%2Finsights%2Fhijrah-ranch-halal-certification-accountability-assessment). 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](/submit-evidence?submissionType=certifier_claim&subject=Hijrah%20Ranch%20LLC%20Halal%20Certification%20program&article=https%3A%2F%2Fhalalstandards.org%2Finsights%2Fhijrah-ranch-halal-certification-accountability-assessment). 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.

Frequently asked questions

What is the Credibility Score for Hijrah Ranch LLC?

Hijrah Ranch LLC received a Credibility Score of 27%, resulting in a Grade F. This reflects significant gaps in public governance, comprehensive standard disclosure, and certificate traceability.

Does Hijrah Ranch LLC require hand slaughter?

The program requires a Muslim slaughterperson and the correct invocation (Tasmiyah) for each animal, but its specific position on mechanical poultry slaughter is not publicly disclosed.

Is Hijrah Ranch LLC accredited by an independent oversight body?

No current exact-entity accreditation by a recognized oversight body was independently verified for Hijrah Ranch LLC.

Can I verify a halal certificate issued by Hijrah Ranch LLC online?

No, the organization does not currently provide a public certificate directory or an online mechanism to verify the status of active clients.

What are the core halal requirements enforced by Hijrah Ranch LLC?

The program publicly requires a Muslim slaughterperson, the correct invocation (Tasmiyah), humane treatment, and complete separation from non-halal products.

References

1. Hijrah Ranch: HOME
2. Hijrah Ranch: Blog / Halal Certification