What the reviewed record establishes
People who choose halal-certified products need clear standards and controls that they can check. Without transparent standards and verifiable controls, it is harder to rely on certification claims for dietary needs.
Islamic Information Center of America (IICA) is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization established in 1982 in Des Plaines, Illinois. Although its primary work is religious education and outreach, it operates an active halal certification program. This assessment examines the accountability and transparency of IICA’s halal certification operations. [1] [2] [3] [4]
The review considered historical recognition claims. However, the current JAKIM list reviewed for this assessment does not name IICA, and this review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization. The assessment therefore relies on direct evidence of controls and public transparency. [2] [4] [5]
Entity and accreditation boundary
The certification program assessed here is the halal certification program of the Islamic Information Center of America, a verified U.S. nonprofit based in Illinois. [1] [2] [3]
This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization. The assessment therefore relies on direct evidence of controls and public transparency. [5]
Halal Industry Exposé · Comprehensive Accountability Assessment
Islamic Information Center of America (IICA) Organizational accountability and public certification-criteria disclosure: 13% Credibility Score · Grade F · Insufficiently substantiated
High confidence. Islamic Information Center of America (IICA) receives a 13% Credibility Score, Grade F. This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization. The reviewed record establishes IICA’s legal identity and provides some evidence of active certificate issuance, including a 2024–2025 independently hosted certificate. It does not establish enough publicly verifiable information about current personnel qualifications, halal decision authority, standards, audit methods, complaints handling, or certificate verification. The record therefore does not substantiate enough accountability for someone to rely on the score alone. A not-verified finding reflects a limit in the reviewed evidence, not proof that a control does not exist.
See the three numerical score components
- Competence assurance
- 12.4227 of 90
- Accreditation breadth
- 0.0000 of 4
- Public accountability
- 0.9750 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 13.3977 out of 100, ordinarily displayed as 13%.
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 78.62%
- 2. Ownership and control 69.53%
- 3. Accountable leadership and governance 12.26%
- 4. Qualified personnel 0.00%
- 5. Islamic authority and halal decision rights 4.41%
- 6. Halal-specific audit and certification controls 0.00%
- 7. Impartiality, conflicts, and independence 0.00%
- 8. Standards, scheme, and certification scope 6.62%
- 9. Public certification criteria and position disclosure 0.00%
- 10. Certificate traceability and mark control 10.76%
- 11. Complaints, appeals, and corrections 0.00%
- 12. Operating history and demonstrated capacity 43.59%
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
Verified nonprofit identity and recent certificate evidence
Public nonprofit records verify the Islamic Information Center of America as a longstanding tax-exempt organization, and a 2024–2025 client certificate documents recent halal-certificate issuance.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #1, #2, #10, #12
Scoring treatment: Explains identity, nonprofit-control, certificate, and continuity credit already included in the affected metrics; it creates no separate bonus.
Evidence boundary: The records do not identify the current halal-program personnel, audit method, Islamic decision authority, or a current current comprehensive exact-entity accreditation.
What needs caution
No current qualifying comprehensive exact-entity accreditation
IICA is recognized by foreign halal authorities such as LPPOM MUI and JAKIM, but there is no evidence of a current qualifying current comprehensive accreditation (e.g., from ANAB, GAC, HAK, or EIAC) for the exact entity under ISO/IEC 17065, GSO 2055-2, or OIC/SMIIC 2.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #10, #11, #12
Scoring treatment: No accreditation-derived control or operational factors are applied.
Evidence boundary: Reliance must be placed entirely on direct evidence of controls and public transparency.
Sources:
Responsible personnel and decision-makers are not publicly verified
The organization provides almost no public transparency regarding its halal certification program. There is no published information on accountable personnel, Islamic affairs experts, or decision separation.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #3, #4, #5, #7
Scoring treatment: Limits public transparency scores in governance, personnel competence, Islamic authority, and impartiality.
Evidence boundary: Missing personnel evidence is not proof of invalidity.
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. 5 checks were fully supported, and 3 checks had partial support.
78.62% 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.
3.9309 of 5 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 3.7059 of 4.5000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.2250 of 0.3000 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Legal identity and standing earns 4.0625 of 5 points. Of 8 enumerated subrequirements, 5 fulfilled, 3 partial.
Why this metric earned 78.62 percent: 8 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 3.7059 competence + 0.2250 public accountability = 3.9309 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. Illinois nonprofit and IRS records establish the exact legal entity, nonprofit status, formation history, and continuing organizational existence.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 1.C2 — fulfilled: The entity is active or otherwise legally authorized to operate.
Evidence route: Public source. Illinois nonprofit and IRS records establish the continuing organizational existence and active status.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 1.C3 — partial: Every public operating name, DBA, division, or brand used for certification is connected to the issuer.
Evidence route: Public source. Illinois nonprofit and IRS records establish the exact legal entity, nonprofit status, formation history, and continuing organizational existence. Current certification activity supplies substantial operational evidence, while the entity records are fully public.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 1.C4 — partial: Material parent, subsidiary, affiliate, and predecessor relationships affecting certification authority are documented.
Evidence route: Public source. Illinois nonprofit and IRS records establish the exact legal entity, nonprofit status, formation history, and continuing organizational existence. Current certification activity supplies substantial operational evidence, while the entity records are fully public.
Public sources: Source 1
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 1.O1 — fulfilled: Current certificates, contracts, or accreditation identify the same accountable issuer.
Evidence route: Public source. Current certification activity supplies substantial operational evidence, as shown on a recent certificate.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 1.O2 — fulfilled: The operating location and jurisdiction correspond to the entity or a documented branch.
Evidence route: Public source. The Islamic Information Center of America (IICA) is established in Des Plaines, Illinois, matching its operating location.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 1.P1 — fulfilled: The public can identify the accountable issuer and operating name.
Evidence route: Public source. The exact legal entity and continuing organizational existence are fully public through IRS records.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 1.P2 — partial: The website, certificate, and public registry do not present materially conflicting issuer identities.
Evidence route: Public source. Illinois nonprofit and IRS records establish the exact legal entity, nonprofit status, formation history, and continuing organizational existence. Current certification activity supplies substantial operational evidence, while the entity records are fully public.
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.
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. 7 checks were fully supported, and 2 checks remained unverified.
69.53% 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.
5.5624 of 8 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 5.0824 of 7.2000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.4800 of 0.4800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Ownership and control earns 6.0000 of 8 points. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 7 fulfilled, 2 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 69.53 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 5.0824 competence + 0.4800 public accountability = 5.5624 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 2.C1 — fulfilled: Ultimate owners or members are identified.
Evidence route: Public source. As a verified nonprofit corporation, equity ownership percentages are inapplicable. Public nonprofit and IRS records identify the governing form and accountable control structure, and continuing filings demonstrate that structure operationally.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 2.C2 — fulfilled: Ownership percentages or interests are established.
Evidence route: Public source. As a verified nonprofit corporation, equity ownership percentages are inapplicable. Public nonprofit and IRS records identify the governing form and accountable control structure, and continuing filings demonstrate that structure operationally.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 2.C3 — fulfilled: Voting, management, or equivalent control rights are established.
Evidence route: Public source. As a verified nonprofit corporation, equity ownership percentages are inapplicable. Public nonprofit and IRS records identify the governing form and accountable control structure, and continuing filings demonstrate that structure operationally.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 2.C4 — fulfilled: Related entities that could affect control are identified.
Evidence route: Public source. As a verified nonprofit corporation, equity ownership percentages are inapplicable. Public nonprofit and IRS records identify the governing form and accountable control structure, and continuing filings demonstrate that structure operationally.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 2.C5 — fulfilled: Ownership continuity is established or preserved through istiṣḥāb absent contrary evidence.
Evidence route: Public source. As a verified nonprofit corporation, equity ownership percentages are inapplicable. Public nonprofit and IRS records identify the governing form and accountable control structure, and continuing filings demonstrate that structure operationally.
Public sources: Source 1
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: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 2.O2 — not verified: No current record contradicts the established owner or control structure.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 2.P1 — fulfilled: Consumers can identify the controlling person or organization when ownership identity is part of the public accountability standard.
Evidence route: Public source. As a verified nonprofit corporation, equity ownership percentages are inapplicable. Public nonprofit and IRS records identify the governing form and accountable control structure, and continuing filings demonstrate that structure operationally.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 2.P2 — fulfilled: Private percentages, taxpayer data, signatures, and personal addresses need not be published when authoritative evidence establishes them.
Evidence route: Public source. As a verified nonprofit corporation, equity ownership percentages are inapplicable. Public nonprofit and IRS records identify the governing form and accountable control structure, and continuing filings demonstrate that structure operationally.
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.
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. 3 checks had partial support, and 7 checks remained unverified.
12.26% 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.
1.7171 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
- 0.2100 of 0.8400 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Accountable leadership and governance earns 1.9483 of 14 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 3 partial, 7 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 12.26 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 1.5071 competence + 0.2100 public accountability = 1.7171 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. Historical leadership is known (Dr. Musa Qutub), but current accountable leadership for the halal program is unverified.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 3.C2 — not verified: Organizational structure and reporting lines are defined.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 3.C3 — not verified: Certification decision authority is assigned.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 3.C4 — not verified: Required governance, impartiality, and Islamic-affairs committees exist.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 3.C5 — not verified: Senior management is accountable for the certification system.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 3.O1 — not verified: Governance roles and committees are implemented and reviewed.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 3.O2 — partial: Certification decisions follow assigned authority.
Evidence route: Public source. A 2024-2025 independently hosted certificate signed by Dr. Musa Qutub as President and Imam provides limited operational evidence.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 3.O3 — not verified: Management review and internal oversight occur.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 3.P1 — partial: Responsible leadership and principal governance roles are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Public source. Historical leadership is known (Dr. Musa Qutub) through an independently hosted certificate, but current accountable leadership is not publicly verified.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 3.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who is accountable for halal decisions and certification decisions.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the 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: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 4.C2 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for Islamic-affairs experts.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 4.C3 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for reviewers and decision makers.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 4.C4 — not verified: Muslim-status requirements are applied where the governing standard requires them.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 4.C5 — not verified: Training, education, experience, and sector competence are defined.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 4.C6 — not verified: Authorization, assignment, monitoring, and performance review are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 4.C7 — not verified: External personnel and contractors satisfy the same applicable requirements.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 4.O1 — not verified: Current personnel records demonstrate qualification and authorization.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 4.O2 — not verified: Audit teams contain the required technical and Islamic expertise.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 4.O3 — not verified: Assignments match sector and scope competence.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 4.O4 — not verified: Personnel performance and continuing competence are monitored.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 4.P1 — not verified: Responsible personnel roles are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 4.P2 — not verified: A reasonable public qualification basis is available for principal technical and Islamic authorities.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the 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: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the 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.
4.41% 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.
0.7941 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
- 0.7941 of 16.2000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 1.0800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Islamic authority and halal decision rights earns 0.7500 of 18 points. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 1 partial, 10 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 4.41 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.7941 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.7941 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: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 5.C2 — not verified: Muslim decision makers are used where required.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 5.C3 — not verified: The Islamic-affairs committee has defined composition and authority.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 5.C4 — not verified: Halal interpretations, disputed questions, and escalations have a controlled decision path.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 5.C5 — not verified: Islamic authority is independent of sales and client pressure.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 5.C6 — not verified: Final halal and certification decision rights are unambiguous.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 5.O1 — partial: Islamic experts participate in audit, review, and decision functions as required.
Evidence route: Public source. An independently hosted 2024–2025 certificate is signed by Dr. Musa Qutub as President and Imam. That is credited as old and incomplete operational evidence, but it does not establish a current appointment, qualifications, governing authority, or current certification-decision responsibility. [4]
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 5.O2 — not verified: Committee or expert decisions are documented and implemented.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 5.O3 — not verified: Certification cannot be issued contrary to the authorized halal decision.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 5.P1 — not verified: The principal Islamic authority or committee is publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 5.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who has final halal-decision authority.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the 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. None of the 15 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
15 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0000 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
- 0.0000 of 12.6000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.8400 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Halal-specific audit and certification controls earns 0.0000 of 14 points. Of 15 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 15 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 15 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 6.C1 — not verified: Application and application review are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 6.C2 — not verified: The audit program and audit time are determined by scope, risk, complexity, sites, and prior results.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 6.C3 — not verified: Stage-one and stage-two audits are used where applicable.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 6.C4 — not verified: Audit teams perform halal-specific document and facility review.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 6.C5 — not verified: Sampling, inspection, and accredited laboratory testing are controlled where applicable.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 6.C6 — not verified: Audit reports and nonconformities are documented.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 6.C7 — not verified: Independent review and certification decisions are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 6.C8 — not verified: Surveillance and recertification are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 6.C9 — not verified: Suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 6.C10 — not verified: Outsourced work remains under HCB responsibility.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 6.O1 — not verified: The current certification system implements each applicable control.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 6.O2 — not verified: Surveillance or accreditation assessment verifies continued implementation.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 6.O3 — not verified: No affirmative evidence shows reliance on an unauthorized third party for the halal decision.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 6.P1 — not verified: The certification pathway and principal stages are publicly understandable.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 6.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the governing scheme and certificate status consequences.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the 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: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 7.C2 — not verified: An impartiality committee or equivalent mechanism operates.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 7.C3 — not verified: Consulting and certification conflicts are prohibited or controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 7.C4 — not verified: Financial, commercial, and relationship threats are identified and mitigated.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 7.C5 — not verified: Recusal and independent decision rules exist.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 7.C6 — not verified: Outsourced and external personnel are subject to impartiality and confidentiality controls.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 7.O1 — not verified: Impartiality risks are reviewed periodically.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 7.O2 — not verified: Conflicts and recusals are documented.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 7.O3 — not verified: Certification decisions remain independent of audit, sales, and consulting pressure.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 7.P1 — not verified: The impartiality commitment and complaint route are publicly accessible.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 7.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the separation between certification and prohibited consulting.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the 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. 1 check had partial support, and 9 checks remained unverified.
6.62% 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.
0.1985 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
- 0.1985 of 2.7000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.1800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Standards, scheme, and certification scope earns 0.1875 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 1 partial, 9 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 6.62 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.1985 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.1985 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: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 8.C2 — not verified: Accredited or claimed categories, activities, products, sites, and locations are defined.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 8.C3 — not verified: Exclusions and limitations are defined.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 8.C4 — not verified: Supplementary destination-market schemes are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 8.C5 — not verified: A precedence rule resolves conflicts between base and supplementary requirements.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 8.C6 — not verified: Clients receive the applicable version and scope.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 8.O1 — partial: Certificates and audits use the correct current standard and scope.
Evidence route: Public source. Certificates list products.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 8.O2 — not verified: Scope changes and version changes are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 8.P1 — not verified: The principal standard, version, category, and certification scope are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 8.P2 — not verified: The public can determine whether supplementary schemes apply and how conflicts are resolved.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the 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. None of the 20 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
20 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: Public certification criteria and position disclosure earns 0.0000 of 8 points. Of 20 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 20 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 20 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and 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 9.C1 — not verified: The public disclosure is authorized, versioned, dated, and controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 9.C2 — not verified: It identifies the governing Islamic and technical authority.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 9.C3 — not verified: It addresses every applicable Form 1002-D field or marks it not applicable.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 9.O1 — not verified: Public criteria match the operative certification scheme.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 9.O2 — not verified: Changes to criteria are reflected in the controlled public version.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 9.O3 — not verified: Supplementary-scheme positions and precedence are kept current.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 9.P1 — not verified: Religious or jurisprudential basis.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 9.P2 — not verified: Supplementary destination-market schemes and precedence.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 9.P3 — not verified: Mechanical poultry slaughter.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 9.P4 — not verified: Mechanical-line tasmiyah.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 9.P5 — not verified: Slaughter-person requirements and supervision.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 9.P6 — not verified: Stunning and reversibility.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 9.P7 — not verified: Alive-at-cut control.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 9.P8 — not verified: Minimum vessel requirement.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 9.P9 — not verified: Pork and animal derivatives.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 9.P10 — not verified: Alcohol and ethanol.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 9.P11 — not verified: Processing aids and ingredient sources.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 9.P12 — not verified: Shared lines and cross-contact.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 9.P13 — not verified: Sanitation or ritual cleansing.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 9.P14 — not verified: Certificate-level position communication.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the 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. 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.
0.3229 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
- 0.3229 of 2.7000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.1800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Certificate traceability and mark control earns 0.3050 of 3 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: 0.3229 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.3229 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 10.C1 — partial: Certificate templates contain required issuer, holder, site, product or activity scope, identifier, issue date, expiry date, and authorization.
Evidence route: Public source. Certificates are issued with specific dates and products, but there is no public certificate directory.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 10.C2 — not verified: A certified-client and product directory is controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 10.C3 — not verified: Certificate status, renewal, suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 10.C4 — not verified: Halal-mark licensing, display, reproduction, translation, and misuse are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 10.C5 — not verified: Verification records are traceable to the exact certificate and issuer.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 10.O1 — partial: Certificates and marks are monitored in use.
Evidence route: Public source. Sample certificates found with dates and products.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 10.O2 — not verified: Misuse and expired status are acted upon.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 10.O3 — not verified: Directory and status records are maintained.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 10.P1 — not verified: Consumers can verify current certificate status through a working HTTPS route, searchable directory, QR destination, or equivalent accessible mechanism.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 10.P2 — not verified: Public verification shows enough information to distinguish holder, scope, site or product, identifier, and validity.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the 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.
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. None of the 10 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
10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0000 of 1 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.9000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.0600 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Complaints, appeals, and corrections earns 0.0000 of 1 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 10 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and 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 11.C1 — not verified: Complaints and appeals have documented procedures.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 11.C2 — not verified: Independent committee or reviewer requirements are defined.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 11.C3 — not verified: Islamic-affairs expertise participates where required.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 11.C4 — not verified: Investigation, decision, communication, corrective action, and records are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 11.C5 — not verified: Conflicts and recusals are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 11.O1 — not verified: The mechanism is implemented and reviewed.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 11.O2 — not verified: Complainants and appellants are informed of outcomes.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 11.O3 — not verified: Valid complaints can trigger investigation and certificate action.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 11.P1 — not verified: A working public route or contact method exists for complaints and appeals.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 11.P2 — not verified: The submission pathway and responsible organization are clear.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the 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.
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. 1 check was fully supported, 6 checks had partial support, and 2 checks remained unverified.
43.59% 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.
0.8718 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
- 0.8118 of 1.8000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0600 of 0.1200 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Operating history and demonstrated capacity earns 0.9167 of 2 points. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 1 fulfilled, 6 partial, 2 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 43.59 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.8118 competence + 0.0600 public accountability = 0.8718 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 12.C1 — partial: The HCB defines competence and resource needs for each scope.
Evidence route: Public source. IICA has a long history (since 1982) and demonstrated capacity through historical recognitions and active certificates.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 12.C2 — partial: Audit time, staffing, sites, shifts, categories, and workload are considered.
Evidence route: Public source. IICA has a long history (since 1982) and demonstrated capacity through historical recognitions and active certificates.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 12.C3 — partial: External resources and outsourcing are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. IICA has a long history (since 1982) and demonstrated capacity through historical recognitions and active certificates.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 12.C4 — partial: Records, internal audits, management review, and corrective action support continued delivery.
Evidence route: Public source. IICA has a long history (since 1982) and demonstrated capacity through historical recognitions and active certificates.
Public sources: Source 1
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 12.O1 — not verified: Current accreditation or direct evidence verifies active delivery capacity within scope.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 12.O2 — fulfilled: Current certificates or clients demonstrate active operations.
Evidence route: Public source. Active certificates confirm capacity.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 12.O3 — not verified: Surveillance, recertification, and management review maintain capacity.
Evidence route: Public source. The reviewed public record does not establish the requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 12.P1 — partial: Operating history, current service scope, and accountable contact are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Public source. IICA has a long history (since 1982) and demonstrated capacity through historical recognitions and active certificates.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 12.P2 — partial: Confidential client volumes, payroll, and workload files need not be published when current accreditation verifies capacity.
Evidence route: Public source. IICA has a long history (since 1982) and demonstrated capacity through historical recognitions and active certificates.
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.
Bottom line
What you should know
What the evidence supports
- Public Illinois nonprofit and IRS records establish the organization’s legal identity, nonprofit status, formation history, and continuing existence.
- Public nonprofit and IRS records establish the governing form and accountable control structure used for the ownership and control finding.
- The reviewed record provides limited evidence of operating history and demonstrated capacity.
What should make you cautious
- The reviewed record did not establish the personnel qualifications, authorization, and related evidence assessed under qualified personnel; the requirement table identifies the affected items and evidence routes.
- The reviewed record did not establish most of the evidence assessed for Islamic authority and halal decision rights; the requirement table identifies the affected items and evidence routes.
- The reviewed record did not establish the halal-specific audit and certification controls assessed; the requirement table identifies the affected items and evidence routes.
What evidence could change this view
- What current, verifiable records would clarify qualified personnel?
- What current, verifiable records would clarify halal-specific audit and certification controls?
- What current, verifiable records would clarify impartiality, conflicts, and independence?
View the original requirement-level questions
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, could materially change the current finding for requirement 1.C3 under the published methodology?
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, could materially change the current finding for requirement 1.C4 under the published methodology?
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, could materially change the current finding for requirement 1.P2 under the published methodology?
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, could materially change the current finding for requirement 2.O1 under the published methodology?
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, could materially change the current finding for requirement 2.O2 under the published methodology?
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, could materially change the current finding for requirement 3.C1 under the published methodology?
Credibility Score interpretation
- Model B assigns 12.4227 of 90 competence-assurance points, 0.0000 of 4 proportional accreditation-breadth points, and 0.9750 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
Islamic Information Center of America receives a 13% Credibility Score, Grade F. The re-audit treated a 2024–2025 independently hosted certificate, signed by Dr. Musa Qutub as President and Imam, as limited operational evidence of Islamic authority. The reviewed record still does not establish current personnel qualifications, appointment, controlled authority, governing standards, audit procedures, complaint handling, or a current public certificate-verification system. [4]
The organization provides very little public information about its halal certification program. The reviewed record contains no published information on halal standards, audit methodology, accountable personnel, Islamic-affairs experts, separation of decision roles, or complaint procedures. Responsible individuals and halal decision-makers are not publicly verified, and this review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization.
This accountability assessment uses the published USDHS methodology as an evidence-review framework. It does not replace the controlling HIPS standard or make a religious ruling about every certificate or product.
Public certification criteria and position disclosure
This disclosure review asks a different question from accreditation: can an ordinary consumer identify the standard or scheme, its current version, the approving authority, and the material halal positions used in this body’s certifications? No responsive public criteria were verified; at most, the review found a general claim to follow halal or Shariah.
The remaining questions could not be classified with confidence because no public disclosure was found on the official website or in public documents. This describes a limit in public evidence; it does not prove that the body has no internal rule.
The remaining questions could not be classified with confidence because no public disclosure was found on the official website or in public documents. This describes a limit in public evidence; it does not prove that the body has no internal rule.
The remaining questions could not be classified with confidence because no public disclosure was found on the official website or in public documents. This describes a limit in public evidence; it does not prove that the body has no internal rule.
This disclosure measure asks whether the body’s position is understandable to the public, not whether it is the most restrictive position. A disclosed position within a recognized scholarly range is not marked down simply because another body follows a different view.
Evidence that could change the remaining findings
This section explains what evidence could support a higher score for Islamic Information Center of America. It does not mean that a control is absent simply because the reviewed public record did not establish it. Any submission must match the assessed entity, state its dates and scope, and show who was responsible for putting it into practice and making decisions.
Qualifying records may be public or submitted privately through the secure evidence pathway. Private records can support evidence of controls or operations when they can be authenticated, but they do not add 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 Islamic Information Center of America that shows the legal name, entity number, jurisdiction, formation date, active status, operating name, and any required certification-business registration not already established.
- Metric 3 — Governance and accountable leadership: A current Islamic Information Center of America governing-body roster and organizational chart that identifies accountable leaders, their roles, appointment or authority basis, management responsibilities, and entity-level accountability for certification decisions.
- Metric 4 — Personnel competence and authorization: A current Islamic Information Center of America personnel roster or independently assessed controlled record that identifies 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 Islamic Information Center of America records that identify the Islamic-affairs experts or decision body, qualifications, appointment, jurisprudential basis, review responsibility, entity-level authority, and traceable participation in final halal decisions.
- Metric 6 — Halal audit method and facility verification: A current controlled Islamic Information Center of America audit procedure and corroborating recent files showing application and scope review, ingredients and process evaluation, on-site work, halal-specific observations, findings, corrective actions, reports, surveillance, and recertification.
- Metric 7 — Impartiality and decision separation: A current Islamic Information Center of America policy on impartiality and separation of decisions, plus implementation records identifying conflict review, separation from consultancy, oversight membership, and separation among audit, technical review, Islamic review, and certification decision.
- Metric 8 — Standards, scheme, and certification scope: A current Islamic Information Center of America standard or scheme record identifying version, effective date, covered sectors and locations, exclusions, supplementary schemes, precedence rules, certificate scope, and the responsible issuing entity.
- Metric 9 — Public certification criteria and position disclosure: A current public Islamic Information Center of America declaration or equivalent methodology covering the governing standard and version, religious basis, scope and exclusions, practical halal positions, supplementary-scheme precedence, certificate communication, and a public verification route.
- Metric 10 — Certificate traceability and mark control: A current public Islamic Information Center of America 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 Islamic Information Center of America 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 Islamic Information Center of America operating records showing 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
Islamic Information Center of America (IICA), or another affected party, may submit responsive records through the secure documentary-evidence form. Material evidence is evaluated under the same methodology whether it increases or decreases the Credibility Score.
An authorized representative may also use Claim this certification body. The claimant must document identity, role, and authority to act for the assessed entity. That authority must be verified through qualifying documents and an independently confirmable official contact channel. A claim stays private and pending until review; it does not give editorial control, disclose other submissions, or automatically change an article, Credibility Score, Grade, or ranking.
A correction request should identify the 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 the review give IICA a 13% Credibility Score and Grade F?
The score recognizes legal identity, operating history, a recent historical certificate sample, and limited operational evidence linking a named Imam to certificate issuance. The reviewed public record still does not establish the current standards, responsible personnel, qualifications, decision authority, audit controls, complaint procedure, or certificate-verification system needed for higher assurance.
Did this review verify current qualifying independent accreditation for IICA?
This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization.
Does a low score make every certificate invalid?
No. This assessment looks at structural accountability, transparency, and verifiable credentials. It does not decide the religious validity of specific products.
Why does the review not include private documents?
The methodology uses public records and publicly verifiable evidence, while allowing the organization to submit responsive controlled documents through the secure documentary-evidence form.
What could raise the certifier’s score?
The article says the score can improve if the organization publishes full ownership details, exact personnel authorizations, halal standards, and audit methodology, and obtains qualifying current comprehensive accreditation.
References
- Islamic Information Center of America, Home
- Islamic Information Center of America, Halal Program
- IRS-derived Nonprofit Explorer, Islamic Information Center of America
- Gadot Biochemical Industries Ltd., IICA Halal Certificate, June 2024–June 2025
- JAKIM, Recognised Foreign Halal Certification Bodies, August 21, 2026
View the controlling HIPS publication