What the reviewed record establishes
Consumers rely on transparent and accountable halal certification to ensure products meet dietary requirements. Without clear standards and verifiable controls, trust in certification claims is compromised.
The Islamic Information Center of America (IICA) is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization established in 1982 in Des Plaines, Illinois. While primarily focused on religious education and outreach, it operates an active halal certification program. This assessment evaluates the accountability and transparency of IICA's halal certification operations. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Historical recognition claims were reviewed, but the current JAKIM list reviewed for this assessment does not name IICA, and no current exact-entity Tier A accreditation was verified. The score therefore relies on direct evidence of controls and public transparency. [2] [4] [5]
Entity and accreditation boundary
The assessed certification entity is the Halal certification program of the Islamic Information Center of America, a verified U.S. nonprofit based in Illinois. [1] [2] [3]
There is no evidence of a current Tier A accreditation for the exact entity. The assessment relies on direct evidence of controls and public transparency. [5]
Halal Industry Exposé · Comprehensive Accountability Assessment
Islamic Information Center of America (IICA), a registered 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit organization based in Des Plaines, Illinois. Organizational accountability: 21% · Grade F · Insufficiently substantiated
High confidence. Islamic Information Center of America (IICA) receives 21%, Grade F. While the organization is a legally verifiable 501(c)(3) nonprofit with a long operating history, it lacks public transparency regarding its halal certification program and does not hold a current Tier A accreditation for the exact entity.
This comprehensive organizational accountability assessment combines the standardized score with the documented business-practice investigation. Flags explain evidence already scored inside the eleven fixed metrics and create no separate bonus or penalty points. The article does not rule that every certificate is invalid, prove that an undisclosed control does not exist, or infer anyone's religion or intent.
Halal Certification Body Accountability Assessment version 2.4. Source cutoff September 13, 2026. Last reviewed September 13, 2026. Raw score 20.9350 out of 100, ordinarily rounded to 21%.
Trust overview
Green flags and red flags
These flags explain evidence already scored inside the eleven fixed metrics. They do not create separate bonus or penalty points.
Green flags
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.
Metrics: #1, #2, #9, #11
Score treatment: Explains identity, nonprofit-control, certificate, and continuity credit already included in the affected metrics; it creates no separate bonus.
Boundary: The records do not identify the current halal-program personnel, audit method, Islamic decision authority, or a current exact-entity Tier A accreditation.
Red flags
No current Tier A exact-entity accreditation
IICA is recognized by foreign halal authorities such as LPPOM MUI and JAKIM, but there is no evidence of a current Tier A accreditation (e.g., from ANAB, GAC, HAK, or EIAC) for the exact entity under ISO/IEC 17065, GSO 2055-2, or OIC/SMIIC 2.
Metrics: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11
Score treatment: No accreditation-derived control or operational factors are applied.
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.
Metrics: #3, #4, #5, #7
Score treatment: Limits public transparency scores in governance, personnel competence, Islamic authority, and impartiality.
Boundary: Missing personnel evidence is not proof of invalidity.
Sources:
Accreditation examined
None · None. None. Inactive. Accredited None; expiry None.
Scope: IICA is recognized by foreign halal authorities such as LPPOM MUI and JAKIM, but there is no evidence of a current Tier A accreditation (e.g., from ANAB, GAC, HAK, or EIAC) for the exact entity under ISO/IEC 17065, GSO 2055-2, or OIC/SMIIC 2. Therefore, no accreditation-derived control or operational factors are applied.
Third-party independence: No Tier A accreditation.
Status factor 0 percent; scope factor 0 percent; independence factor 0 percent; accreditation assurance factor 0 percent.
How USDHS grades organizational accountability
Each metric is 60 percent control assurance, 25 percent operational evidence, and 15 percent public evidence. Government records and other authoritative public sources count even when the certifier does not reproduce them on its own website. A recognized accreditation of the exact entity and scope can support the control layer and part of operational evidence; it never creates public-evidence credit or transfers across entities without the required bridge. Classification bands: A, 90 to 100, strongly substantiated; B, 80 to 89, substantiated; C, 70 to 79, partially substantiated; D, 60 to 69, material gaps; F, 0 to 59, insufficiently substantiated.
Part 2
Numbered assessment metrics
1. Legal identity and operating status
Legal entity, jurisdiction, operating identity, formation, status, address, and required registrations.
84.75% of this metric; 5.08 of 6 weighted points. verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation-derived control or operational assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 85 percent evidence factor; 3.06 points. 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.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 75 percent evidence factor; 1.13 points. Active certificate issuance confirms operations.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 100 percent evidence factor; 0.90 points. 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.
Metric conclusion: 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.
2. Ownership and control
Beneficial owners, percentages, controlling persons, governance rights, related parties, and conflicts.
100.00% of this metric; 10.00 of 10 weighted points. verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation-derived control or operational assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 100 percent evidence factor; 6.00 points. 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.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 100 percent evidence factor; 2.50 points. Governed by a board of directors.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 100 percent evidence factor; 1.50 points. 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.
Metric conclusion: 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.
3. Governance and accountable leadership
Named leadership, governing bodies, organizational structure, management responsibility, and accountable contacts.
25.00% of this metric; 3.50 of 14 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation-derived control or operational assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 2.10 points. Historical leadership is known (Dr. Musa Qutub), but current accountable leadership for the halal program is unverified and not publicly verified.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.88 points. Operations continue.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.53 points. Historical leadership is known (Dr. Musa Qutub), but current accountable leadership for the halal program is unverified and not publicly verified.
Metric conclusion: Historical leadership is known (Dr. Musa Qutub), but current accountable leadership for the halal program is unverified and not publicly verified.
4. Personnel competence and authorization
Auditor, reviewer, technical-expert, and contractor qualifications, training, authorization, monitoring, and assignments.
0.00% of this metric; 0.00 of 18 weighted points. unverified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation-derived control or operational assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. No evidence of auditors, technical experts, or their qualifications and authorization.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. No evidence of competence.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. No evidence of auditors, technical experts, or their qualifications and authorization. Responsible people are not publicly verified.
Metric conclusion: No evidence of auditors, technical experts, or their qualifications and authorization.
5. Islamic authority and halal decision
Qualified Islamic-affairs personnel, governing authority, jurisprudential basis, review roles, and final halal decisions.
0.00% of this metric; 0.00 of 18 weighted points. unverified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation-derived control or operational assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. No Islamic affairs experts or decision authorities are named for the halal program. Responsible people are not publicly verified.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. No evidence.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. No Islamic affairs experts or decision authorities are named for the halal program. Responsible people are not publicly verified and not publicly verified.
Metric conclusion: No Islamic affairs experts or decision authorities are named for the halal program. Responsible people are not publicly verified.
6. Halal audit method and facility verification
Application, scope review, documents, on-site work, ingredients, processes, findings, corrections, reports, surveillance, and recertification.
0.00% of this metric; 0.00 of 14 weighted points. unverified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation-derived control or operational assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. No audit method, procedures, or evidence of on-site facility verification are published or verifiable.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. No evidence.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. No audit method, procedures, or evidence of on-site facility verification are published or verifiable.
Metric conclusion: No audit method, procedures, or evidence of on-site facility verification are published or verifiable.
7. Impartiality and decision separation
Conflicts, consultancy separation, impartiality oversight, and separation among audit, review, and certification decisions.
0.00% of this metric; 0.00 of 8 weighted points. unverified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation-derived control or operational assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. No conflict controls or separation between audit and certification decisions are evident.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. No evidence.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. No conflict controls or separation between audit and certification decisions are evident.
Metric conclusion: No conflict controls or separation between audit and certification decisions are evident.
8. Standards, scheme, and certification scope
Governing standards, sectors, locations, exclusions, religious positions, certificate scope, and scheme boundaries.
6.25% of this metric; 0.25 of 4 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation-derived control or operational assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. Certificates list products, but no specific halal standard or scheme is publicly identified.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.25 points. Certificates list products.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. Certificates list products, but no specific halal standard or scheme is publicly identified.
Metric conclusion: Certificates list products, but no specific halal standard or scheme is publicly identified.
9. Certificate traceability and mark control
Current certificate verification, identifiers, holders, sites, products, dates, status changes, and mark misuse controls.
27.50% of this metric; 1.10 of 4 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation-derived control or operational assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.60 points. Certificates are issued with specific dates and products, but there is no public certificate directory.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 0.50 points. Sample certificates found with dates and products.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. Certificates are issued with specific dates and products, but there is no public certificate directory.
Metric conclusion: Certificates are issued with specific dates and products, but there is no public certificate directory.
10. Complaints, appeals, and corrections
Complaint and appeal routes, timing, independent review, records, corrections, escalation, and non-retaliation.
0.00% of this metric; 0.00 of 2 weighted points. unverified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation-derived control or operational assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. No published route for complaints, appeals, or corrections.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. No evidence.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. No published route for complaints, appeals, or corrections.
Metric conclusion: No published route for complaints, appeals, or corrections.
11. Operating history and demonstrated capacity
Corroborated timeline, current activity, clients, sectors, personnel resources, and workload matched to competent capacity.
50.00% of this metric; 1.00 of 2 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation-derived control or operational assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 0.60 points. IICA has a long history (since 1982) and demonstrated capacity through historical recognitions and active certificates.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 0.25 points. Active certificates confirm capacity.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 0.15 points. IICA has a long history (since 1982) and demonstrated capacity through historical recognitions and active certificates.
Metric conclusion: IICA has a long history (since 1982) and demonstrated capacity through historical recognitions and active certificates.
Part 3
Conclusion
Strongest findings
- IICA is a legally verifiable 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization with a long operating history since 1982.
- The organization has demonstrated historical capacity and recognition by international halal authorities.
Material gaps
- The organization provides almost no public transparency regarding its halal certification program.
- There is no published information on halal standards, audit methodology, accountable personnel, Islamic affairs experts, decision separation, or complaint procedures.
- The responsible individuals and halal decision-makers are not publicly verified.
- There is no evidence of a current Tier A accreditation for the exact entity.
Unresolved questions
- The identity and qualifications of current auditors, technical experts, and Islamic decision-makers remain unverified.
Score interpretation
- Raw score: 20.9350. The displayed score uses ordinary rounding.
Material records are rescored under the same rules, whether they raise or lower the result. Submit documentary evidence through the secure evidence and correction form.
Conclusion
IICA is a legally verifiable 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization with a long operating history since 1982. The organization has demonstrated historical capacity and recognition by international halal authorities. [1] [2] [3] [4]
However, the organization provides almost no public transparency regarding its halal certification program. There is no published information on halal standards, audit methodology, accountable personnel, Islamic affairs experts, decision separation, or complaint procedures. The responsible individuals and halal decision-makers are not publicly verified, and there is no evidence of a current Tier A accreditation for the exact entity.
Corrections and responsive evidence
IICA may submit responsive records through the [secure documentary-evidence form](/submit-evidence?article=islamic-information-center-of-america-accountability-assessment&subject=Islamic%20Information%20Center%20of%20America). HIPS evaluates material evidence under the same methodology whether it raises or lowers a score.
A submission should identify the exact organization, statement, metric, source, effective dates, scope, responsible people, and requested correction. Publication is not conditional on a response, and no organization has a veto over a documented finding.
This assessment explains public evidence and organizational accountability. It does not replace the controlling HIPS standard, an accreditation or certification decision, a religious ruling, or legal advice.
Frequently asked questions
Why does Islamic Information Center of America receive 21%, Grade F?
IICA receives a low score due to a lack of public transparency regarding its halal certification program, hidden responsible personnel, and the absence of a current Tier A accreditation for the exact entity.
Is Islamic Information Center of America currently accredited?
No. While recognized by foreign authorities, there is no evidence of a current Tier A accreditation (e.g., from ANAB, GAC, HAK, or EIAC) for the exact entity.
Does a low score mean every certificate is invalid?
No. This assessment measures structural accountability, transparency, and verifiable credentials, not the religious validity of specific products.
Why are private documents not included?
The methodology relies on public records and publicly verifiable evidence, while allowing the organization to submit responsive controlled documents through the secure documentary-evidence form.
How can the certifier improve its score?
Scores can be improved by publishing full ownership details, exact personnel authorizations, halal standards, audit methodology, and obtaining Tier A 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