Islamic Services of America Comprehensive Accountability Assessment: 91%, Grade A

Why certifier accountability matters

Halal certification depends on competent people, Islamic authority, a halal-specific audit, an impartial decision, and records that connect the final certificate to the work performed. Publicly verifiable evidence matters because consumers and clients must be able to identify the certifier and understand what its certificate covers. Public evidence, however, is only one part of accountability. A current accreditation may establish that an independent accreditation body examined controls that are not published on the certifier’s website. This assessment applies the private methodology 2.4 accreditation-authority calibration to ISA, Inc. doing business as Islamic Services of America. It is an organizational accountability assessment, not a ruling that every ISA certificate is valid or invalid.

Who Islamic Services of America is

Islamic Services of America is a currently active Iowa corporation with a verified Cedar Rapids operating identity, named senior leadership, substantial public process information, multiple current certificates, and three independently verified accreditations for the exact operating entity [1] [2] [3] [8] [10] [12] [20]. GAC lists ISA as accredited under GSO 2055-2:2021 for food-manufacturing categories CI through CV, including slaughtering [2]; HAK lists active OIC/SMIIC 2:2019 accreditation for categories CIV and K [3]; and EIAC lists active accreditation for CIII processing and CV bovine and poultry slaughtering under GSO 2055-1 and GSO 993 [20]. BPJPH, JAKIM, MUIS, CICOT, and Qatar MOPH records separately establish current state or Islamic-authority recognition or authorization [4] [5] [6] [21] [22]. This broader portfolio supplies repeated independent assurance for competent personnel, Islamic-affairs participation, audits, impartial review, certification decisions, status control, and complaints handling within the verified scopes.

Halal Industry Exposé · Comprehensive Accountability Assessment

ISA, Inc., operating as Islamic Services of America Organizational accountability: 91% · Grade A · Strongly substantiated

High for institutional status and accreditation; moderate for undisclosed ownership and file-level personnel evidence confidence. Islamic Services of America is a currently active Iowa corporation with a verified Cedar Rapids operating identity, named senior leadership, substantial public process information, multiple current certificates, and three independently verified accreditations for the exact operating entity. GAC lists ISA as accredited under GSO 2055-2:2021 for food-manufacturing categories CI through CV, including slaughtering; HAK lists active OIC/SMIIC 2:2019 accreditation for categories CIV and K; and EIAC lists active accreditation for CIII processing and CV bovine and poultry slaughtering under GSO 2055-1 and GSO 993. BPJPH, JAKIM, MUIS, CICOT, and Qatar MOPH records separately establish current state or Islamic-authority recognition or authorization. This broader portfolio supplies repeated independent assurance for competent personnel, Islamic-affairs participation, audits, impartial review, certification decisions, status control, and complaints handling within the verified scopes. The score does not reach 100 because current ownership percentages and governing rights remain undisclosed, ISA does not publish a complete current roster of auditors, reviewers, Islamic-affairs experts, committee members, individual qualifications and authorizations, or file-level assignments, and public certificates do not identify the people who audited, reviewed, and decided each case. The assessment also records the company’s 2015 corporate guilty plea and 2016 sentence as a material historical contradiction without treating that completed case as a current charge.

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 ISA certificate is valid or invalid, prove that an undisclosed control does not exist, claim that no halal audit occurred in every file, declare any individual fictitious or unqualified, or infer anyone’s religion or intent. It states that the reviewed record documents the organizational accountability and accreditation but does not independently establish the current ownership percentages or individual file-level personnel assignments.

Halal Certification Body Accountability Assessment version 2.4. Source cutoff September 12, 2026. Last reviewed September 13, 2026. Raw score 91.2650 out of 100, ordinarily rounded to 91%.

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. 1. Legal identity and operating status

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

   100.00% of this metric; 6.00 of 6 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: GAC, HAK, JAKIM, MUIS, and USDA records independently match the operating identity and address.

   A. Control assurance, 60 percent

   100 percent evidence factor; 3.60 points. The Iowa Secretary of State identifies ISA, Inc. as an active domestic profit corporation with perpetual duration, effective November 29, 2010. It lists Islamic Services of America, Inc. as an active fictitious name, Jalel Aossey as registered agent, and the Cedar Rapids address used by ISA’s website and accrediting bodies.

   B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

   100 percent evidence factor; 1.50 points. GAC, HAK, JAKIM, MUIS, and USDA records independently match the operating identity and address.

   C. Public evidence, 15 percent

   100 percent evidence factor; 0.90 points. The operating identity, address, and corporate status are fully public.

   Metric conclusion: Legal identity and operating status are fully verified through state and independent authority records.

2. 2. Ownership and control

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

   81.00% of this metric; 8.10 of 10 weighted points. partially verified.

   Accreditation effect: GAC, HAK, and EIAC independently require the exact entity to provide legal, structural, management, responsibility, and impartiality records and to maintain covered controls under continuing oversight.

   A. Control assurance, 60 percent

   85 percent evidence factor; 5.10 points. Primary federal records state that Jalel Aossey and Yahya Nasser Aossey were ISA owners in 2015, and the Iowa record currently identifies Jalel Aossey as registered agent. The three accreditation systems and additional state recognitions justify stronger control assurance.

   B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

   90 percent evidence factor; 2.25 points. The three accreditation systems and additional state recognitions justify stronger operational assurance for ownership and control.

   C. Public evidence, 15 percent

   50 percent evidence factor; 0.75 points. These records establish historical ownership and a current accountable corporate contact, but not current shareholder percentages, beneficial ownership, voting rights, related-party control, or changes since 2015.

   Metric conclusion: Historical ownership and current corporate contacts are known, but current beneficial-ownership percentages are not public.

3. 3. Governance and accountable leadership

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

   93.75% of this metric; 13.13 of 14 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: The three exact-entity accreditations support full control assurance for senior-management and organizational controls within scope. MUIS’s current recognition separately assesses designated management personnel and requires continuing reporting.

   A. Control assurance, 60 percent

   100 percent evidence factor; 8.40 points. The three exact-entity accreditations support full control assurance for senior-management and organizational controls within scope.

   B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

   90 percent evidence factor; 3.15 points. Named roles and independent authority records support 0.90 operational evidence.

   C. Public evidence, 15 percent

   75 percent evidence factor; 1.57 points. ISA publicly identifies Jalel Aossey as president. JAKIM independently identifies Jalel Aossey as president and identifies Timothy Abu Mounir Hyatt as vice president, while USDA identifies Rahiem Martin as business director and GAC identifies Yassine Tebbal as its ISA contact. The current governing board, full organization chart, committee membership, delegated authorities, and ownership-governance relationship are not fully public.

   Metric conclusion: Senior leadership is identified and verified, but complete organizational governance structure remains partially undisclosed.

4. 4. Personnel competence and authorization

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

   90.00% of this metric; 16.20 of 18 weighted points. partially verified.

   Accreditation effect: GSO 2055-2 requires competent and ethically committed Muslim auditors and decision makers, documented education, halal and audit training, experience, authorization, monitoring, and records for employees, contractors, and external personnel. ISA’s exact-entity GAC accreditation therefore supplies strong control assurance within its listed categories. HAK accreditation and current MUIS recognition provide corroborating external assurance.

   A. Control assurance, 60 percent

   100 percent evidence factor; 10.80 points. ISA’s exact-entity GAC accreditation supplies strong control assurance within its listed categories.

   B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

   90 percent evidence factor; 4.05 points. Three Tier A accreditations provide repeated implementation assurance that personnel qualifications, authorizations, monitoring, and witnessed capability were reviewed within scope. MUIS separately requires assessment of designated management, Shariah committee, technical-auditor, and Shariah-auditor personnel and annual reporting.

   C. Public evidence, 15 percent

   50 percent evidence factor; 1.35 points. Public evidence does not identify the complete current auditor and reviewer roster, individual sector authorizations, monitoring results, or case-level assignments.

   Metric conclusion: Strong control and operational assurance exists through accreditation, but the complete personnel roster and assignments are not public.

5. 5. Islamic authority and halal decision

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

   90.00% of this metric; 16.20 of 18 weighted points. partially verified.

   Accreditation effect: GAC, HAK, and EIAC accreditation provide repeated independent implementation assurance that required Islamic-affairs participation and decision controls were assessed, while MUIS separately evaluates designated Shariah personnel.

   A. Control assurance, 60 percent

   100 percent evidence factor; 10.80 points. GSO 2055-2 requires a halal Islamic-affairs committee, Islamic-affairs participation in the audit team, and a certification-decision team of at least three people with at least two Islamic-affairs experts deciding unanimously. ISA’s GAC accreditation supports full control assurance that these scheme requirements were assessed for the accredited scope.

   B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

   90 percent evidence factor; 4.05 points. GAC, HAK, and EIAC accreditation provide repeated independent implementation assurance that required Islamic-affairs participation and decision controls were assessed, while MUIS separately evaluates designated Shariah personnel.

   C. Public evidence, 15 percent

   50 percent evidence factor; 1.35 points. ISA does not publicly identify current committee members, their Islamic qualifications, appointments, review assignments, meeting records, or the people responsible for sampled final decisions.

   Metric conclusion: Accreditation supports the organization’s compliance with scheme-required Islamic-governance controls, but the specific individuals exercising this authority remain undisclosed.

6. 6. Halal audit method and facility verification

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

   93.75% of this metric; 13.13 of 14 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: GAC accreditation applies comprehensive GSO 2055-2 requirements for audit planning, two-stage initial assessment, onsite work, sampling, reports, surveillance, recertification, and corrective action. GAC, HAK, and EIAC independently assess audit capability within their respective scopes; BPJPH, JAKIM, MUIS, CICOT, and Qatar further corroborate continued external acceptance.

   A. Control assurance, 60 percent

   100 percent evidence factor; 8.40 points. GAC accreditation applies comprehensive GSO 2055-2 requirements for audit planning, two-stage initial assessment, onsite work, sampling, reports, surveillance, recertification, and corrective action.

   B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

   90 percent evidence factor; 3.15 points. Four current certificates independently demonstrate active facility, process, ingredient, and product approvals. GAC, HAK, and EIAC independently assess audit capability within their respective scopes; BPJPH, JAKIM, MUIS, CICOT, and Qatar further corroborate continued external acceptance.

   C. Public evidence, 15 percent

   75 percent evidence factor; 1.57 points. ISA publishes a detailed lifecycle covering application, product and ingredient review, source-of-origin evidence, process-flow review, onsite facility audit, opening and closing meetings, storage and production segregation, sanitation, recall controls, findings, committee review, annual audit, and additional visits when facilities or third-party manufacturers change. Public files do not identify assigned auditors, audit dates, reports, findings, corrective actions, or review records for those samples.

   Metric conclusion: Robust audit methods are documented and verified through accreditation and sample certificates, though individual audit reports are not public.

7. 7. Impartiality and decision separation

   Impartiality committee, conflict management, consulting separation, independent review, and decision authority.

   90.00% of this metric; 7.20 of 8 weighted points. partially verified.

   Accreditation effect: Three separate Tier A accreditation systems support stronger operational assurance that impartiality and decision-separation controls are implemented.

   A. Control assurance, 60 percent

   100 percent evidence factor; 4.80 points. GSO 2055-2 requires impartiality controls, consultancy separation, an impartiality committee with Islamic-affairs participation, independent review, and retained certification-body decision responsibility. Current exact-entity accreditation supports full control assurance.

   B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

   90 percent evidence factor; 1.80 points. Three separate Tier A accreditation systems support stronger operational assurance that impartiality and decision-separation controls are implemented.

   C. Public evidence, 15 percent

   50 percent evidence factor; 0.60 points. The names, independence declarations, conflict records, committee composition, review assignments, and sampled separation among auditor, reviewer, and decision maker are not public.

   Metric conclusion: Impartiality controls are verified through accreditation, but specific personnel separation records are not public.

8. 8. Standards, scheme, and certification scope

   Governing standards, certification schemes, product categories, exclusions, and scope boundaries.

   100.00% of this metric; 4.00 of 4 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: GAC publicly identifies the governing standard, exact entity, location, categories CI through CV, and applicable product and slaughter standards. HAK separately identifies OIC/SMIIC 2:2019 and categories CIV and K. EIAC identifies CIII processing and CV bovine and poultry slaughtering under GSO 2055-1 and GSO 993.

   A. Control assurance, 60 percent

   100 percent evidence factor; 2.40 points. The governing standards and certified activities are clear and current.

   B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

   100 percent evidence factor; 1.00 points. Current third-party certificates identify facilities and products.

   C. Public evidence, 15 percent

   100 percent evidence factor; 0.60 points. ISA publishes its certification process and sector claims, while accreditors publish exact scopes.

   Metric conclusion: Standards, schemes, and certification scopes are fully verified and publicly accessible.

9. 9. Certificate traceability and mark control

   Current certificate verification, identifiers, holders, sites, products, dates, status changes, and mark misuse controls.

   92.50% of this metric; 3.70 of 4 weighted points. partially verified.

   Accreditation effect: The samples, status-action record, and foreign-authority acceptance demonstrate current practice.

   A. Control assurance, 60 percent

   100 percent evidence factor; 2.40 points. Four current independently hosted certificates identify the certificate number, holder, facility, products, issue date, expiry date, ISA mark terms, and president. ISA also publishes annual cancellation and non-renewal lists from 2018 through 2026 and describes suspension, withdrawal, restoration, scope reduction, appeal, and mark-misuse controls.

   B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

   85 percent evidence factor; 0.85 points. The samples, status-action record, and foreign-authority acceptance demonstrate current practice.

   C. Public evidence, 15 percent

   75 percent evidence factor; 0.45 points. ISA does not provide a complete searchable public directory showing live status for every current certificate and product. The cancellation page also combines cancellations and non-renewals.

   Metric conclusion: Certificates are traceable and mark controls are documented, but a complete searchable live directory is not provided.

10. 10. Complaints, appeals, and corrections

    Complaint and appeal routes, timing, independent review, records, corrections, escalation, and non-retaliation.

    90.00% of this metric; 1.80 of 2 weighted points. partially verified.

    Accreditation effect: Three exact-entity accreditation systems provide repeated operational assurance that complaint and appeal procedures, independence, records, and corrective actions were assessed in implementation.

    A. Control assurance, 60 percent

    100 percent evidence factor; 1.20 points. GSO 2055-2 requires complaint and appeal committees independent from the disputed certification activity and including Islamic-affairs expertise. ISA’s exact-entity accreditation supports full control assurance. ISA directs complaints, appeals, and comments to a public contact form and states that adverse certification decisions are communicated with reasons and an opportunity to respond or appeal.

    B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

    90 percent evidence factor; 0.45 points. Three exact-entity accreditation systems provide repeated operational assurance that complaint and appeal procedures, independence, records, and corrective actions were assessed in implementation.

    C. Public evidence, 15 percent

    50 percent evidence factor; 0.15 points. The public record does not disclose response times, committee membership, escalation stages, non-retaliation terms, records, outcomes, or a public corrections log.

    Metric conclusion: Complaint and appeal controls are verified through accreditation, but specific procedures and records are not public.

11. 11. Operating history and demonstrated capacity

    Corroborated timeline, current activity, clients, sectors, personnel resources, and workload matched to competent capacity.

    90.75% of this metric; 1.81 of 2 weighted points. verified.

    Accreditation effect: The expanded oversight portfolio raises control assurance to 0.95 and operational evidence to 0.90.

    A. Control assurance, 60 percent

    95 percent evidence factor; 1.14 points. The expanded oversight portfolio raises control assurance to 0.95.

    B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

    90 percent evidence factor; 0.45 points. Current GAC, HAK, and EIAC accreditation; BPJPH, JAKIM, MUIS, CICOT, and Qatar recognition or authorization; four current certificate samples; and a large multi-year cancellation record demonstrate substantial ongoing operating capacity.

    C. Public evidence, 15 percent

    75 percent evidence factor; 0.23 points. The record does not independently establish every organizational transition between the 1975 community activity and the current 2010 Iowa corporation, and it does not publish a workload denominator or complete personnel capacity model.

    Metric conclusion: Substantial ongoing operating capacity is demonstrated through accreditation, recognition, and current certificates.

Score interpretation

• The four responsible-person metrics earned 58.6500 of 64 points, or 91.64%.
• The four responsible-person metrics earned 58.6500 of 64 points, or 91.64%. Those results affect the calculated score directly; no separate floor or cap is applied.
• The green and red flags summarize evidence already reflected in the eleven metric factors. They do not add or subtract separate points and the same fact is not deducted twice.

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.

Accountability and Accreditation

The corrected score gives increasing but bounded weight to genuinely independent credentials. One current Tier A accreditation can support substantial implementation assurance; complementary second and third accreditations, plus authority recognitions with their own personnel assessment, reporting, or oversight, can raise that operational factor without exceeding the 1.00 evidence-layer ceiling or counting the same control repeatedly. ISA reaches the 0.90 portfolio band for covered controls. The score does not reach 100 because current ownership percentages and governing rights remain undisclosed [1] [7], ISA does not publish a complete current roster of auditors, reviewers, Islamic-affairs experts, committee members, individual qualifications and authorizations, or file-level assignments [10], and public certificates do not identify the people who audited, reviewed, and decided each case [12] [13] [14] [15]. The assessment also records the company’s 2015 corporate guilty plea and 2016 sentence as a material historical contradiction without treating that completed case as a current charge [7] [18] [19].

Entity and accreditation boundary

The assessed entity is ISA, Inc., Iowa business number 407637, an active domestic profit corporation with an active fictitious name, Islamic Services of America, and a registered Cedar Rapids address matching the public certification operation [1]. The Iowa summary does not disclose current shareholders or ownership percentages [1]. GAC’s official certificate identifies Islamic Services of America, accreditation number HPC 0071, at the same Cedar Rapids address [2]. Its April 1, 2026 scope covers categories CI, CII, CIII, CIV, and CV under GSO 2055-2:2021, including food processing and slaughtering [2]. HAK separately lists ISA as active under accreditation 2025-074, valid September 8, 2025 through September 8, 2030, for categories CIV and K under OIC/SMIIC 2:2019 [3]. EIAC’s official directory lists ISA INC and DBA Islamic Services of America ISA, accreditation HBN-CB-091, active from July 24, 2025 for CIII processing and CV bovine and poultry slaughtering under GSO 2055-1 and GSO 993 [20]. Accreditation-derived assurance is limited to the exact entity, location, standards, dates, and activities in those records. BPJPH, JAKIM, MUIS, CICOT, and Qatar relationships are described using the issuing authority’s own recognition, authorization, or foreign-HCB terminology rather than all being relabeled as accreditation [4] [5] [6] [21] [22].

Historical legal record and present-day boundary

ISA, Inc. pleaded guilty in September 2015 to one count of conspiracy involving mail and wire fraud, concealment of material facts, false USDA-related statements and documents, false export certificates, and sale of misbranded meat with intent to defraud [7] [18]. In February 2016, the federal court fined ISA $60,000, imposed a $400 assessment, entered a $600,000 forfeiture judgment jointly and severally with Midamar, and placed ISA on five years of probation [19]. The case is relevant because the conduct included halal certification and export representations [18] [19]. It is not described as a current charge. The reviewed DOJ releases do not establish the exact probation discharge date, later corrective actions, or a current violation [7] [18] [19]. Current exact-entity accreditation, recognition, certificates, and operating records are assessed separately. The historical contradiction reduces confidence in relying only on ISA’s own longevity claims, but methodology 2.4 imposes no separate penalty after the affected evidence factors are set.

Corrections and responsive evidence

ISA, Inc., operating as Islamic Services of America may submit responsive records through the [secure documentary-evidence form](/submit-evidence?subject=ISA%2C%20Inc.%2C%20operating%20as%20Islamic%20Services%20of%20America&article=https%3A%2F%2Fhalalstandards.org%2Finsights%2Fislamic-services-of-america-accountability-assessment). USDHS 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

Does this score mean ISA certificates are invalid?

No. This is an organizational accountability assessment, not a religious ruling that every ISA certificate is invalid. The score reflects the strength of publicly verifiable evidence and independent accreditation for the certifier's systems, not the halal status of individual products.

Why didn't ISA score 100% despite having three Tier A accreditations?

While the accreditations provide strong control and operational assurance, the score also requires publicly verifiable evidence. ISA's score does not reach 100% because current ownership percentages, a complete roster of personnel and their qualifications, and a complete searchable public directory of certificates are not fully public.

How does the 2015 legal case affect the score?

The historical contradiction reduces confidence in relying only on ISA’s own longevity claims, but methodology 2.4 imposes no separate penalty after the affected evidence factors are set. Current exact-entity accreditation, recognition, certificates, and operating records are assessed separately.

Is ISA recognized by international authorities?

Yes. In addition to accreditations from GAC, HAK, and EIAC, records from BPJPH, JAKIM, MUIS, CICOT, and Qatar MOPH separately establish current state or Islamic-authority recognition or authorization.

How can ISA improve its score?

The most consequential additional evidence would be a current ownership and governance record; a public organization chart; names, qualifications, authorizations, and roles for current auditors, reviewers, Islamic-affairs experts, and committee members; complete current certificate verification; and complaint and appeal procedures with timing and independence controls.

References

1. Iowa Secretary of State Business Entities Search; ISA, Inc., business number 407637
2. GAC Accreditation Certificate and Scope, Islamic Services of America, HPC 0071, issued April 1, 2026
3. HAK Halal Accreditation Certificate 2025-074, Islamic Services of America
4. JAKIM, Recognized Foreign Halal Certification Bodies and Authorities, effective August 21, 2026
5. MUIS e-Service, recognized ISA entry
6. USDA FAS, Indonesia’s Expanding Halal Standards with Trade Impacts on the Horizon, August 27, 2025
7. U.S. Department of Justice, Midamar and ISA Owners Plead Guilty
8. ISA biography for Jalel Aossey
9. Philippine Accreditation Bureau, GSO 2055-2:2021 Assessment Checklist
10. ISA, How to Halal Certify Your Company Products
11. ISA Halal Awareness Overview Training Presentation
12. ISA Halal Product Certificate 1216-25-39615, Ventura Coastal
13. ISA Halal Product Certificate 1103-25-39438, Greenwood Associates / Chicago Processed Fruit Group
14. ISA Halal Product Certificate 1207-25-39555, Monument Chemical
15. ISA Halal Product Certificate AC-0318-26-000006, DuBois Chemicals
16. ISA, Basics of ISA Halal Certification
17. ISA, Suspended, Cancelled, Terminated Customer List
18. U.S. Department of Justice, Halal Distributor and Halal Certifier Plead Guilty
19. U.S. Department of Justice, Prison Term and Nearly $1 Million in Judgments Ordered Against Midamar Founder, Midamar, and ISA
20. EIAC Directory, ISA INC and DBA Islamic Services of America ISA, HBN-CB-091
21. CICOT, Announcement on Recognition of Foreign Halal Certification Bodies
22. Qatar Ministry of Public Health, Authorized List of Halal Bodies; exact ISA query