Who is being assessed and its accreditation status
Reliable standards and transparent certification matter in institutional food service because public schools and educational institutions need properly verified meals. The Halal Integrity Certification program of Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York, Inc. provides this service in the New York area. Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization founded in 1989. It serves as an Islamic Leadership Council for more than 90 mosques and institutions in the New York area. The organization operates the Halal Integrity Certification program, which focuses on certifying public schools and educational institutions. The program currently certifies more than 40 schools in the NYC and Long Island regions and works with the NYC Department of Education to review and certify halal products and kitchen facilities [1] [2] [3].
This assessment concerns the Halal Integrity Certification program of Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York, Inc. No current halal accreditation or foreign national halal authority recognition was publicly verified for the Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York Halal Integrity Certification program. This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization. The program operates as an independent, unaccredited halal certification service focused on institutional food service. Because qualifying current comprehensive independent accreditation was not verified, the review did not use accreditation as evidence of control or operational assurance, and its findings rely on direct evidence.
Halal Industry Exposé · Comprehensive Accountability Assessment
Halal Integrity Certification program of Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York, Inc. Organizational accountability and public certification-criteria disclosure: 22% Credibility Score · Grade F · Insufficiently substantiated
High confidence. The Halal Integrity Certification program of Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York, Inc. receives a 22% Credibility Score, Grade F. This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization. The assessment therefore relies on the reviewed evidence about its controls and operations. Publicly available material provides only limited support for accountability findings. The reviewed record does not yet provide enough substantiated information on competence and public accountability to support reliance on the score alone. A finding that information was not verified means the reviewed record did not establish it; it does not show that the control does not exist.
See the three numerical score components
- Competence assurance
- 20.0647 of 90
- Accreditation breadth
- 0.0000 of 4
- Public accountability
- 2.1064 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 22.1711 out of 100, ordinarily displayed as 22%.
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 96.00%
- 2. Ownership and control 12.71%
- 3. Accountable leadership and governance 35.29%
- 4. Qualified personnel 15.24%
- 5. Islamic authority and halal decision rights 21.53%
- 6. Halal-specific audit and certification controls 19.59%
- 7. Impartiality, conflicts, and independence 0.00%
- 8. Standards, scheme, and certification scope 25.32%
- 9. Public certification criteria and position disclosure 2.14%
- 10. Certificate traceability and mark control 15.26%
- 11. Complaints, appeals, and corrections 1.50%
- 12. Operating history and demonstrated capacity 32.47%
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
Transparent legal entity and leadership
The organization demonstrates transparent legal entity status as a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit [3]. It publicly identifies its Board of Directors and the Halal Integrity Certification Program Director [4]. A public directory of certified schools is available on their website [2]. The organization also clearly states the Zabiha halal standard applied [1].
What needs caution
Unaccredited status and limited public methodology
The program lacks verified third-party halal accreditation or foreign authority recognition. Detailed audit methodology and formal impartiality policies are not publicly disclosed. The specific qualifications of the listed Halal Food Inspectors are not provided, and no formal complaints and appeals process is documented publicly.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #4, #5, #6, #7, #11
Scoring treatment: Limits control and public transparency scores.
Evidence boundary: Missing methodology and accreditation 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. All 8 checks were supported by the reviewed evidence.
96.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
8 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
4.8000 of 5 weighted points. verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 4.5000 of 4.5000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.3000 of 0.3000 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Legal identity and standing earns 5.0000 of 5 points. Of 8 enumerated subrequirements, 8 fulfilled.
Why this metric earned 96.00 percent: 8 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 4.5000 competence + 0.3000 public accountability = 4.8000 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. Government and nonprofit records establish Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York, Inc., while current school-certification activity and the NYC Department of Education relationship establish the operating Halal Integrity Certification program.
Requirement 1.C2 — fulfilled: The entity is active or otherwise legally authorized to operate.
Evidence route: Public source. Government and nonprofit records establish Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York, Inc., while current school-certification activity and the NYC Department of Education relationship establish the operating Halal Integrity Certification program.
Requirement 1.C3 — fulfilled: Every public operating name, DBA, division, or brand used for certification is connected to the issuer.
Evidence route: Public source. Government and nonprofit records establish Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York, Inc., while current school-certification activity and the NYC Department of Education relationship establish the operating Halal Integrity Certification program.
Requirement 1.C4 — fulfilled: Material parent, subsidiary, affiliate, and predecessor relationships affecting certification authority are documented.
Evidence route: Public source. Government and nonprofit records establish Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York, Inc., while current school-certification activity and the NYC Department of Education relationship establish the operating Halal Integrity Certification program.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 1.O1 — fulfilled: Current certificates, contracts, or accreditation identify the same accountable issuer.
Evidence route: Public source. Current school-certification activity and the NYC Department of Education relationship establish the operating Halal Integrity Certification program.
Requirement 1.O2 — fulfilled: The operating location and jurisdiction correspond to the entity or a documented branch.
Evidence route: Public source. Current school-certification activity and the NYC Department of Education relationship establish the operating Halal Integrity Certification program.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 1.P1 — fulfilled: The public can identify the accountable issuer and operating name.
Evidence route: Public source. Public transparency is reflected in the factor.
Requirement 1.P2 — fulfilled: The website, certificate, and public registry do not present materially conflicting issuer identities.
Evidence route: Public source. Public transparency is reflected in the factor.
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. 1 check was fully supported, and 8 checks remained unverified.
12.71% 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.
1.0165 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
- 1.0165 of 7.2000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.4800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Ownership and control earns 0.9600 of 8 points. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 1 fulfilled, 8 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 12.71 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 1.0165 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 1.0165 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. Equity ownership is inapplicable to the nonprofit. Public governing records and a named board substantiate organizational control, but complete bylaws, voting rights, related-party arrangements, and conflict records were not reviewed.
Requirement 2.C2 — not verified: Ownership percentages or interests are established.
Evidence route: Public source. Equity ownership is inapplicable to the nonprofit. Public governing records and a named board substantiate organizational control, but complete bylaws, voting rights, related-party arrangements, and conflict records were not reviewed.
Requirement 2.C3 — not verified: Voting, management, or equivalent control rights are established.
Evidence route: Public source. Equity ownership is inapplicable to the nonprofit. Public governing records and a named board substantiate organizational control, but complete bylaws, voting rights, related-party arrangements, and conflict records were not reviewed.
Requirement 2.C4 — not verified: Related entities that could affect control are identified.
Evidence route: Public source. Equity ownership is inapplicable to the nonprofit. Public governing records and a named board substantiate organizational control, but complete bylaws, voting rights, related-party arrangements, and conflict records were not reviewed.
Requirement 2.C5 — not verified: Ownership continuity is established or preserved through istiṣḥāb absent contrary evidence.
Evidence route: Public source. Equity ownership is inapplicable to the nonprofit. Public governing records and a named board substantiate organizational control, but complete bylaws, voting rights, related-party arrangements, and conflict records were not reviewed.
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. Operational implementation is partially supported.
Requirement 2.O2 — not verified: No current record contradicts the established owner or control structure.
Evidence route: Public source. Operational implementation is partially supported.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 2.P1 — not verified: Consumers can identify the controlling person or organization when ownership identity is part of the public accountability standard.
Evidence route: Public source. Complete bylaws, voting rights, related-party arrangements, and conflict records were not reviewed.
Requirement 2.P2 — not verified: Private percentages, taxpayer data, signatures, and personal addresses need not be published when authoritative evidence establishes them.
Evidence route: Public source. Complete bylaws, voting rights, related-party arrangements, and conflict records were not reviewed.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
3. Accountable leadership and governance
What this means in plain English: This category asks who is responsible for the certification program, how authority is assigned, and who is accountable for its decisions. 2 checks were fully supported, 4 checks had partial support, and 4 checks remained unverified.
35.29% 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.
4.9412 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
- 4.5212 of 12.6000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.4200 of 0.8400 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Accountable leadership and governance earns 5.3200 of 14 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 2 fulfilled, 4 partial, 4 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 35.29 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 4.5212 competence + 0.4200 public accountability = 4.9412 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 3.C1 — fulfilled: Senior leadership is identified.
Evidence route: Public source. The board and Halal Integrity Certification program director are publicly named, and current school contracts demonstrate active accountable management. Detailed appointment, delegation, monitoring, and file-level authority records remain incomplete.
Requirement 3.C2 — not verified: Organizational structure and reporting lines are defined.
Evidence route: Public source. The board and Halal Integrity Certification program director are publicly named, and current school contracts demonstrate active accountable management. Detailed appointment, delegation, monitoring, and file-level authority records remain incomplete.
Requirement 3.C3 — not verified: Certification decision authority is assigned.
Evidence route: Public source. The board and Halal Integrity Certification program director are publicly named, and current school contracts demonstrate active accountable management. Detailed appointment, delegation, monitoring, and file-level authority records remain incomplete.
Requirement 3.C4 — not verified: Required governance, impartiality, and Islamic-affairs committees exist.
Evidence route: Public source. The board and Halal Integrity Certification program director are publicly named, and current school contracts demonstrate active accountable management. Detailed appointment, delegation, monitoring, and file-level authority records remain incomplete.
Requirement 3.C5 — partial: Senior management is accountable for the certification system.
Evidence route: Public source. The board and Halal Integrity Certification program director are publicly named, and current school contracts demonstrate active accountable management. Detailed appointment, delegation, monitoring, and file-level authority records remain incomplete.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 3.O1 — partial: Governance roles and committees are implemented and reviewed.
Evidence route: Public source. Current school contracts demonstrate active accountable management.
Requirement 3.O2 — partial: Certification decisions follow assigned authority.
Evidence route: Public source. Current school contracts demonstrate active accountable management.
Requirement 3.O3 — partial: Management review and internal oversight occur.
Evidence route: Public source. Current school contracts demonstrate active accountable management.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 3.P1 — fulfilled: Responsible leadership and principal governance roles are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Public source. Detailed appointment, delegation, monitoring, and file-level authority records remain incomplete.
Requirement 3.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who is accountable for halal decisions and certification decisions.
Evidence route: Public source. Detailed appointment, delegation, monitoring, and file-level authority records remain incomplete.
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. 1 check was fully supported, 4 checks had partial support, and 9 checks remained unverified.
15.24% 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.
2.7424 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
- 2.3824 of 16.2000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.3600 of 1.0800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Qualified personnel earns 3.1500 of 18 points. Of 14 enumerated subrequirements, 1 fulfilled, 4 partial, 9 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 15.24 percent: 14 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 2.3824 competence + 0.3600 public accountability = 2.7424 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. Halal food inspectors are publicly listed and current school work demonstrates activity, but their detailed qualifications, training, authorization, assignments, and monitoring records were not independently verified.
Requirement 4.C2 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for Islamic-affairs experts.
Evidence route: Public source. Halal food inspectors are publicly listed and current school work demonstrates activity, but their detailed qualifications, training, authorization, assignments, and monitoring records were not independently verified.
Requirement 4.C3 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for reviewers and decision makers.
Evidence route: Public source. Halal food inspectors are publicly listed and current school work demonstrates activity, but their detailed qualifications, training, authorization, assignments, and monitoring records were not independently verified.
Requirement 4.C4 — not verified: Muslim-status requirements are applied where the governing standard requires them.
Evidence route: Public source. Halal food inspectors are publicly listed and current school work demonstrates activity, but their detailed qualifications, training, authorization, assignments, and monitoring records were not independently verified.
Requirement 4.C5 — not verified: Training, education, experience, and sector competence are defined.
Evidence route: Public source. Halal food inspectors are publicly listed and current school work demonstrates activity, but their detailed qualifications, training, authorization, assignments, and monitoring records were not independently verified.
Requirement 4.C6 — not verified: Authorization, assignment, monitoring, and performance review are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. Halal food inspectors are publicly listed and current school work demonstrates activity, but their detailed qualifications, training, authorization, assignments, and monitoring records were not independently verified.
Requirement 4.C7 — not verified: External personnel and contractors satisfy the same applicable requirements.
Evidence route: Public source. Halal food inspectors are publicly listed and current school work demonstrates activity, but their detailed qualifications, training, authorization, assignments, and monitoring records were not independently verified.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 4.O1 — partial: Current personnel records demonstrate qualification and authorization.
Evidence route: Public source. Current school work demonstrates activity.
Requirement 4.O2 — partial: Audit teams contain the required technical and Islamic expertise.
Evidence route: Public source. Current school work demonstrates activity.
Requirement 4.O3 — partial: Assignments match sector and scope competence.
Evidence route: Public source. Current school work demonstrates activity.
Requirement 4.O4 — partial: Personnel performance and continuing competence are monitored.
Evidence route: Public source. Current school work demonstrates activity.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 4.P1 — fulfilled: Responsible personnel roles are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Public source. Detailed qualifications, training, authorization, assignments, and monitoring records were not independently verified.
Requirement 4.P2 — not verified: A reasonable public qualification basis is available for principal technical and Islamic authorities.
Evidence route: Public source. Detailed qualifications, training, authorization, assignments, and monitoring records were not independently verified.
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. Detailed qualifications, training, authorization, assignments, and monitoring records were not independently verified.
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 was fully supported, 4 checks had partial support, and 6 checks remained unverified.
21.53% 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.
3.8753 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
- 3.3353 of 16.2000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.5400 of 1.0800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Islamic authority and halal decision rights earns 4.5000 of 18 points. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 1 fulfilled, 4 partial, 6 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 21.53 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 3.3353 competence + 0.5400 public accountability = 3.8753 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 5.C1 — partial: Qualified Muslim Islamic-affairs experts are appointed.
Evidence route: Public source. A named program director identified as a Sheikh and the Islamic leadership context support partial public and operational evidence.
Requirement 5.C2 — not verified: Muslim decision makers are used where required.
Evidence route: Public source. A named program director identified as a Sheikh and the Islamic leadership context support partial public and operational evidence. Formal qualifications, appointment, review responsibility, and traceable final halal decision authority were not independently verified.
Requirement 5.C3 — not verified: The Islamic-affairs committee has defined composition and authority.
Evidence route: Public source. A named program director identified as a Sheikh and the Islamic leadership context support partial public and operational evidence. Formal qualifications, appointment, review responsibility, and traceable final halal decision authority were not independently verified.
Requirement 5.C4 — not verified: Halal interpretations, disputed questions, and escalations have a controlled decision path.
Evidence route: Public source. A named program director identified as a Sheikh and the Islamic leadership context support partial public and operational evidence. Formal qualifications, appointment, review responsibility, and traceable final halal decision authority were not independently verified.
Requirement 5.C5 — not verified: Islamic authority is independent of sales and client pressure.
Evidence route: Public source. A named program director identified as a Sheikh and the Islamic leadership context support partial public and operational evidence. Formal qualifications, appointment, review responsibility, and traceable final halal decision authority were not independently verified.
Requirement 5.C6 — not verified: Final halal and certification decision rights are unambiguous.
Evidence route: Public source. A named program director identified as a Sheikh and the Islamic leadership context support partial public and operational evidence. Formal qualifications, appointment, review responsibility, and traceable final halal decision authority were not independently verified.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 5.O1 — partial: Islamic experts participate in audit, review, and decision functions as required.
Evidence route: Public source. Operational implementation is partially supported.
Requirement 5.O2 — partial: Committee or expert decisions are documented and implemented.
Evidence route: Public source. Operational implementation is partially supported.
Requirement 5.O3 — partial: Certification cannot be issued contrary to the authorized halal decision.
Evidence route: Public source. Operational implementation is partially supported.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 5.P1 — fulfilled: The principal Islamic authority or committee is publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Public source. Formal qualifications, appointment, review responsibility, and traceable final halal decision authority were not independently verified.
Requirement 5.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who has final halal-decision authority.
Evidence route: Public source. Formal qualifications, appointment, review responsibility, and traceable final halal decision authority were not independently verified.
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. 5 checks had partial support, and 10 checks remained unverified.
19.59% 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.
2.7424 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
- 2.7424 of 12.6000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.8400 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Halal-specific audit and certification controls earns 2.5900 of 14 points. Of 15 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 5 partial, 10 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 19.59 percent: 15 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 2.7424 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 2.7424 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 6.C1 — partial: Application and application review are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. The program publicly describes an initial meeting, staff training by a designated Imam, and a kitchen review.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 6.C2 — not verified: The audit program and audit time are determined by scope, risk, complexity, sites, and prior results.
Evidence route: Public source. The program publicly describes an initial meeting, staff training by a designated Imam, and a kitchen review. Current certified-school listings and the institutional relationship demonstrate implementation, but no complete controlled audit procedure or audit file was reviewed.
Requirement 6.C3 — not verified: Stage-one and stage-two audits are used where applicable.
Evidence route: Public source. The program publicly describes an initial meeting, staff training by a designated Imam, and a kitchen review. Current certified-school listings and the institutional relationship demonstrate implementation, but no complete controlled audit procedure or audit file was reviewed.
Requirement 6.C4 — partial: Audit teams perform halal-specific document and facility review.
Evidence route: Public source. The program publicly describes a kitchen review.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 6.C5 — not verified: Sampling, inspection, and accredited laboratory testing are controlled where applicable.
Evidence route: Public source. The program publicly describes an initial meeting, staff training by a designated Imam, and a kitchen review. Current certified-school listings and the institutional relationship demonstrate implementation, but no complete controlled audit procedure or audit file was reviewed.
Requirement 6.C6 — not verified: Audit reports and nonconformities are documented.
Evidence route: Public source. The program publicly describes an initial meeting, staff training by a designated Imam, and a kitchen review. Current certified-school listings and the institutional relationship demonstrate implementation, but no complete controlled audit procedure or audit file was reviewed.
Requirement 6.C7 — not verified: Independent review and certification decisions are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. The program publicly describes an initial meeting, staff training by a designated Imam, and a kitchen review. Current certified-school listings and the institutional relationship demonstrate implementation, but no complete controlled audit procedure or audit file was reviewed.
Requirement 6.C8 — not verified: Surveillance and recertification are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. The program publicly describes an initial meeting, staff training by a designated Imam, and a kitchen review. Current certified-school listings and the institutional relationship demonstrate implementation, but no complete controlled audit procedure or audit file was reviewed.
Requirement 6.C9 — not verified: Suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. The program publicly describes an initial meeting, staff training by a designated Imam, and a kitchen review. Current certified-school listings and the institutional relationship demonstrate implementation, but no complete controlled audit procedure or audit file was reviewed.
Requirement 6.C10 — not verified: Outsourced work remains under HCB responsibility.
Evidence route: Public source. The program publicly describes an initial meeting, staff training by a designated Imam, and a kitchen review. Current certified-school listings and the institutional relationship demonstrate implementation, but no complete controlled audit procedure or audit file was reviewed.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 6.O1 — partial: The current certification system implements each applicable control.
Evidence route: Public source. Current certified-school listings and the institutional relationship demonstrate implementation.
Requirement 6.O2 — partial: Surveillance or accreditation assessment verifies continued implementation.
Evidence route: Public source. Current certified-school listings and the institutional relationship demonstrate implementation.
Requirement 6.O3 — partial: No affirmative evidence shows reliance on an unauthorized third party for the halal decision.
Evidence route: Public source. Current certified-school listings and the institutional relationship demonstrate implementation.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 6.P1 — not verified: The certification pathway and principal stages are publicly understandable.
Evidence route: Public source. No complete controlled audit procedure or audit file was reviewed.
Requirement 6.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the governing scheme and certificate status consequences.
Evidence route: Public source. No complete controlled audit procedure or audit file was reviewed.
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. Nonprofit status does not by itself establish certification impartiality. No formal conflict controls, risk assessment, or separation among evaluation, review, and certification decisions was independently verified.
Requirement 7.C2 — not verified: An impartiality committee or equivalent mechanism operates.
Evidence route: Public source. Nonprofit status does not by itself establish certification impartiality. No formal conflict controls, risk assessment, or separation among evaluation, review, and certification decisions was independently verified.
Requirement 7.C3 — not verified: Consulting and certification conflicts are prohibited or controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. Nonprofit status does not by itself establish certification impartiality. No formal conflict controls, risk assessment, or separation among evaluation, review, and certification decisions was independently verified.
Requirement 7.C4 — not verified: Financial, commercial, and relationship threats are identified and mitigated.
Evidence route: Public source. Nonprofit status does not by itself establish certification impartiality. No formal conflict controls, risk assessment, or separation among evaluation, review, and certification decisions was independently verified.
Requirement 7.C5 — not verified: Recusal and independent decision rules exist.
Evidence route: Public source. Nonprofit status does not by itself establish certification impartiality. No formal conflict controls, risk assessment, or separation among evaluation, review, and certification decisions was independently verified.
Requirement 7.C6 — not verified: Outsourced and external personnel are subject to impartiality and confidentiality controls.
Evidence route: Public source. Nonprofit status does not by itself establish certification impartiality. No formal conflict controls, risk assessment, or separation among evaluation, review, and certification decisions was independently verified.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 7.O1 — not verified: Impartiality risks are reviewed periodically.
Evidence route: Public source. No formal conflict controls, risk assessment, or separation among evaluation, review, and certification decisions was independently verified.
Requirement 7.O2 — not verified: Conflicts and recusals are documented.
Evidence route: Public source. No formal conflict controls, risk assessment, or separation among evaluation, review, and certification decisions was independently verified.
Requirement 7.O3 — not verified: Certification decisions remain independent of audit, sales, and consulting pressure.
Evidence route: Public source. No formal conflict controls, risk assessment, or separation among evaluation, review, and certification decisions was independently verified.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 7.P1 — not verified: The impartiality commitment and complaint route are publicly accessible.
Evidence route: Public source. Public transparency is limited.
Requirement 7.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the separation between certification and prohibited consulting.
Evidence route: Public source. Public transparency is limited.
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. 5 checks had partial support, and 5 checks remained unverified.
25.32% 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.
0.7597 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
- 0.7147 of 2.7000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0450 of 0.1800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Standards, scheme, and certification scope earns 0.7875 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 5 partial, 5 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 25.32 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.7147 competence + 0.0450 public accountability = 0.7597 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 8.C1 — partial: Governing standard names and versions are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. The program states its Zabiha requirement and school-food-service scope, and current institutional work demonstrates implementation. A complete certification scheme and all exclusions were not publicly reviewed.
Requirement 8.C2 — partial: Accredited or claimed categories, activities, products, sites, and locations are defined.
Evidence route: Public source. The program states its Zabiha requirement and school-food-service scope.
Requirement 8.C3 — not verified: Exclusions and limitations are defined.
Evidence route: Public source. The program states its Zabiha requirement and school-food-service scope, and current institutional work demonstrates implementation. A complete certification scheme and all exclusions were not publicly reviewed.
Requirement 8.C4 — not verified: Supplementary destination-market schemes are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. The program states its Zabiha requirement and school-food-service scope, and current institutional work demonstrates implementation. A complete certification scheme and all exclusions were not publicly reviewed.
Requirement 8.C5 — not verified: A precedence rule resolves conflicts between base and supplementary requirements.
Evidence route: Public source. The program states its Zabiha requirement and school-food-service scope, and current institutional work demonstrates implementation. A complete certification scheme and all exclusions were not publicly reviewed.
Requirement 8.C6 — not verified: Clients receive the applicable version and scope.
Evidence route: Public source. The program states its Zabiha requirement and school-food-service scope, and current institutional work demonstrates implementation. A complete certification scheme and all exclusions were not publicly reviewed.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 8.O1 — partial: Certificates and audits use the correct current standard and scope.
Evidence route: Public source. Current institutional work demonstrates implementation.
Requirement 8.O2 — partial: Scope changes and version changes are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. Current institutional work demonstrates implementation.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 8.P1 — partial: The principal standard, version, category, and certification scope are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Public source. A complete certification scheme and all exclusions were not publicly reviewed.
Requirement 8.P2 — not verified: The public can determine whether supplementary schemes apply and how conflicts are resolved.
Evidence route: Public source. A complete certification scheme and all exclusions were not publicly reviewed.
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. 5 checks were fully supported, and 15 checks remained unverified.
2.14% 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.
0.1714 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
- 0.1714 of 0.4800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Public certification criteria and position disclosure earns 0.4286 of 8 points. Of 20 enumerated subrequirements, 5 fulfilled, 15 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 2.14 percent: 20 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.1714 public accountability = 0.1714 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. Only isolated or fragmented public criteria were verified; no coherent complete disclosure could be reconstructed.
Requirement 9.C2 — not verified: It identifies the governing Islamic and technical authority.
Evidence route: Public source. Only isolated or fragmented public criteria were verified; no coherent complete disclosure could be reconstructed.
Requirement 9.C3 — not verified: It addresses every applicable Form 1002-D field or marks it not applicable.
Evidence route: Public source. Only isolated or fragmented public criteria were verified; no coherent complete disclosure could be reconstructed.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 9.O1 — not verified: Public criteria match the operative certification scheme.
Evidence route: Public source. At least one current operational sample demonstrates part of the disclosed system.
Requirement 9.O2 — not verified: Changes to criteria are reflected in the controlled public version.
Evidence route: Public source. At least one current operational sample demonstrates part of the disclosed system.
Requirement 9.O3 — not verified: Supplementary-scheme positions and precedence are kept current.
Evidence route: Public source. At least one current operational sample demonstrates part of the disclosed system.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 9.P1 — fulfilled: Religious or jurisprudential basis.
Evidence route: Public source. The public program states that it follows a strict Zabiha halal standard developed with imams and requiring hand slaughter by a Muslim with invocation of Allah’s name.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 9.P2 — not verified: Supplementary destination-market schemes and precedence.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No reviewed current public source states a complete position for: Supplementary destination-market schemes and precedence.
Requirement 9.P3 — fulfilled: Mechanical poultry slaughter.
Evidence route: Public source. Requires hand-slaughter, which implies mechanical slaughter is not allowed.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 9.P4 — fulfilled: Mechanical-line tasmiyah.
Evidence route: Public source. The program expressly requires hand slaughter by a Muslim who mentions Allah’s name; it does not present a mechanical-line invocation practice as an accepted method.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 9.P5 — fulfilled: Slaughter-person requirements and supervision.
Evidence route: Public source. Requires slaughter by a Muslim who mentions the name of Allah.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 9.P6 — not verified: Stunning and reversibility.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No reviewed current public source states a complete position for: Stunning and reversibility.
Requirement 9.P7 — not verified: Alive-at-cut control.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No reviewed current public source states a complete position for: Alive-at-cut control.
Requirement 9.P8 — not verified: Minimum vessel requirement.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No reviewed current public source states a complete position for: Minimum vessel requirement.
Requirement 9.P9 — not verified: Pork and animal derivatives.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No reviewed current public source states a complete position for: Pork and animal derivatives.
Requirement 9.P10 — not verified: Alcohol and ethanol.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No reviewed current public source states a complete position for: Alcohol and ethanol.
Requirement 9.P11 — not verified: Processing aids and ingredient sources.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No reviewed current public source states a complete position for: Processing aids and ingredient sources.
Requirement 9.P12 — fulfilled: Shared lines and cross-contact.
Evidence route: Public source. Requires preventing cross-contact, trained by a designated Imam.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 9.P13 — not verified: Sanitation or ritual cleansing.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No reviewed current public source states a complete position for: Sanitation or ritual cleansing.
Requirement 9.P14 — not verified: Certificate-level position communication.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No reviewed current public source states a complete position for: Certificate-level position communication.
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. 1 check was fully supported, 3 checks had partial support, and 6 checks remained unverified.
15.26% 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.
0.4579 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
- 0.1350 of 0.1800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Certificate traceability and mark control earns 0.6425 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 1 fulfilled, 3 partial, 6 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 15.26 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.3229 competence + 0.1350 public accountability = 0.4579 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 10.C1 — not verified: Certificate templates contain required issuer, holder, site, product or activity scope, identifier, issue date, expiry date, and authorization.
Evidence route: Public source. A public certified-schools list provides current traceability and operational evidence, but individual certificate identifiers, validity dates, status changes, and mark-misuse controls are not fully disclosed.
Requirement 10.C2 — partial: A certified-client and product directory is controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. A public certified-schools list provides current traceability and operational evidence.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 10.C3 — not verified: Certificate status, renewal, suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. A public certified-schools list provides current traceability and operational evidence, but individual certificate identifiers, validity dates, status changes, and mark-misuse controls are not fully disclosed.
Requirement 10.C4 — not verified: Halal-mark licensing, display, reproduction, translation, and misuse are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. A public certified-schools list provides current traceability and operational evidence, but individual certificate identifiers, validity dates, status changes, and mark-misuse controls are not fully disclosed.
Requirement 10.C5 — not verified: Verification records are traceable to the exact certificate and issuer.
Evidence route: Public source. A public certified-schools list provides current traceability and operational evidence, but individual certificate identifiers, validity dates, status changes, and mark-misuse controls are not fully disclosed.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 10.O1 — not verified: Certificates and marks are monitored in use.
Evidence route: Public source. Operational implementation is supported by public directory.
Requirement 10.O2 — not verified: Misuse and expired status are acted upon.
Evidence route: Public source. Operational implementation is supported by public directory.
Requirement 10.O3 — partial: Directory and status records are maintained.
Evidence route: Public source. Operational implementation is supported by public directory.
Public sources: Source 1
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 10.P1 — fulfilled: Consumers can verify current certificate status through a working HTTPS route, searchable directory, QR destination, or equivalent accessible mechanism.
Evidence route: Public source. Individual certificate identifiers, validity dates, status changes, and mark-misuse controls are not fully disclosed.
Requirement 10.P2 — partial: Public verification shows enough information to distinguish holder, scope, site or product, identifier, and validity.
Evidence route: Public source. A public certified-schools list provides current traceability.
Public sources: Source 1
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
11. Complaints, appeals, and corrections
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether people can challenge a decision, report a problem, receive an independent review, and see appropriate corrective action. 1 check had partial support, and 9 checks remained unverified.
1.50% 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.
0.0150 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
- 0.0150 of 0.0600 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Complaints, appeals, and corrections earns 0.0375 of 1 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 1 partial, 9 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 1.50 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0150 public accountability = 0.0150 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. General contact information is available, but no formal complaints and appeals procedure, response times, independent review mechanism, or correction log was independently verified.
Requirement 11.C2 — not verified: Independent committee or reviewer requirements are defined.
Evidence route: Public source. General contact information is available, but no formal complaints and appeals procedure, response times, independent review mechanism, or correction log was independently verified.
Requirement 11.C3 — not verified: Islamic-affairs expertise participates where required.
Evidence route: Public source. General contact information is available, but no formal complaints and appeals procedure, response times, independent review mechanism, or correction log was independently verified.
Requirement 11.C4 — not verified: Investigation, decision, communication, corrective action, and records are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. General contact information is available, but no formal complaints and appeals procedure, response times, independent review mechanism, or correction log was independently verified.
Requirement 11.C5 — not verified: Conflicts and recusals are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. General contact information is available, but no formal complaints and appeals procedure, response times, independent review mechanism, or correction log was independently verified.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 11.O1 — not verified: The mechanism is implemented and reviewed.
Evidence route: Public source. No formal complaints and appeals procedure, response times, independent review mechanism, or correction log was independently verified.
Requirement 11.O2 — not verified: Complainants and appellants are informed of outcomes.
Evidence route: Public source. No formal complaints and appeals procedure, response times, independent review mechanism, or correction log was independently verified.
Requirement 11.O3 — not verified: Valid complaints can trigger investigation and certificate action.
Evidence route: Public source. No formal complaints and appeals procedure, response times, independent review mechanism, or correction log was independently verified.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 11.P1 — partial: A working public route or contact method exists for complaints and appeals.
Evidence route: Public source. General contact information is available, providing a partial public route, though a specific complaints and appeals method is not formalized.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 11.P2 — not verified: The submission pathway and responsible organization are clear.
Evidence route: Public source. Public transparency is limited.
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. 5 checks were fully supported, and 4 checks remained unverified.
32.47% 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.
0.6494 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
- 0.5294 of 1.8000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.1200 of 0.1200 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Operating history and demonstrated capacity earns 0.8000 of 2 points. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 5 fulfilled, 4 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 32.47 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.5294 competence + 0.1200 public accountability = 0.6494 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 12.C1 — not verified: The HCB defines competence and resource needs for each scope.
Evidence route: Public source. The organization dates to 1989 and current public records show more than forty certified schools and an institutional operating relationship, providing strong evidence of continuity and capacity.
Requirement 12.C2 — not verified: Audit time, staffing, sites, shifts, categories, and workload are considered.
Evidence route: Public source. The organization dates to 1989 and current public records show more than forty certified schools and an institutional operating relationship, providing strong evidence of continuity and capacity.
Requirement 12.C3 — not verified: External resources and outsourcing are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. The organization dates to 1989 and current public records show more than forty certified schools and an institutional operating relationship, providing strong evidence of continuity and capacity.
Requirement 12.C4 — not verified: Records, internal audits, management review, and corrective action support continued delivery.
Evidence route: Public source. The organization dates to 1989 and current public records show more than forty certified schools and an institutional operating relationship, providing strong evidence of continuity and capacity.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 12.O1 — fulfilled: Current accreditation or direct evidence verifies active delivery capacity within scope.
Evidence route: Public source. Current public records show more than forty certified schools and an institutional operating relationship, providing strong evidence of continuity and capacity.
Requirement 12.O2 — fulfilled: Current certificates or clients demonstrate active operations.
Evidence route: Public source. Current public records show more than forty certified schools and an institutional operating relationship, providing strong evidence of continuity and capacity.
Requirement 12.O3 — fulfilled: Surveillance, recertification, and management review maintain capacity.
Evidence route: Public source. Current public records show more than forty certified schools and an institutional operating relationship, providing strong evidence of continuity and capacity.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 12.P1 — fulfilled: Operating history, current service scope, and accountable contact are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Public source. Public transparency is reflected in the factor.
Requirement 12.P2 — fulfilled: Confidential client volumes, payroll, and workload files need not be published when current accreditation verifies capacity.
Evidence route: Public source. Public transparency is reflected in the factor.
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
- The review found the strongest support for the program's legal identity and standing.
- The reviewed record provided some support for its operating history and demonstrated capacity.
- The review found some support for accountable leadership and governance, including named leadership, but the support was limited.
What should make you cautious
- The review did not establish enough evidence about qualified personnel; the requirement table identifies the affected items and evidence routes.
- The review did not establish enough evidence about Islamic authority and halal decision rights; the requirement table identifies the affected items and evidence routes.
- The review did not establish enough evidence about halal-specific audit and certification controls; the requirement table identifies the affected items and evidence routes.
What evidence could change this view
- What current, verifiable records would clarify impartiality, conflicts, and independence?
- What current, verifiable records would clarify complaints, appeals, and corrections?
- What current, verifiable records would clarify public certification criteria and position disclosure?
View the original requirement-level questions
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the current finding for requirement 2.C2 under the published methodology?
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the current finding for requirement 2.C3 under the published methodology?
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the current finding for requirement 2.C4 under the published methodology?
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the current finding for requirement 2.C5 under the published methodology?
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the current finding for requirement 2.O1 under the published methodology?
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the current finding for requirement 2.O2 under the published methodology?
Credibility Score interpretation
- Model B assigns 20.0647 of 90 competence-assurance points, 0.0000 of 4 proportional accreditation-breadth points, and 2.1064 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
The Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York Halal Integrity Certification program appears in the national assessment series as an active, independent U.S. halal certification body specializing in institutional and school food service. The organization dates to 1989, and current public records show more than forty certified schools and an institutional operating relationship. Together, these provide strong evidence of continuity and capacity.
The program publicly describes an initial meeting, staff training by a designated Imam, and a kitchen review. However, the review did not independently verify formal qualifications, appointment, review responsibility, or traceable authority for final halal decisions. HIPS is the analytical framework used here; it does not replace the organization's governing certification standard.
This accountability assessment uses the published USDHS methodology to review evidence. It does not replace the controlling HIPS standard or make a religious ruling about every certificate or product.
What the program publicly explains about its certification rules
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 that govern this body's certifications? The public material reviewed was fragmented, stale, difficult to locate, or insufficient to determine the complete operative position.
On governing documents, scope, and certificate communication, the reviewed sources establish that the scope includes public schools and cafeterias in NYC and Long Island and that the program maintains a public list of certified schools [1] [2].
The review could not confidently classify the remaining questions because they were not sufficiently disclosed. No comprehensive governing standard or scheme document is publicly disclosed. The sources mention a 'Zabiha halal' standard, but do not disclose a standard's version or effective date, a specific madhab or detailed jurisprudential basis beyond 'Zabiha halal', supplementary schemes or their precedence, or certificate-level position communication. This is a limit of the public evidence and does not prove that the body has no internal rule.
On slaughter and poultry controls, the reviewed sources establish that the program requires hand slaughter, meaning mechanical slaughter is not allowed, and requires slaughter by a Muslim who mentions the name of Allah [1].
The review could not confidently classify the remaining questions because they were not sufficiently disclosed. No specific position on mechanical-line tasmiyyah is disclosed, although hand slaughter is required. No public position is disclosed on stunning, control that the animal is alive at the cut, or a minimum vessel requirement. This is a limit of the public evidence and does not prove that the body has no internal rule.
On ingredients and the production environment, the reviewed sources establish requirements to prevent cross-contact and training by a designated Imam [1].
The review could not confidently classify the remaining questions because they were not sufficiently disclosed. No specific public position is disclosed on pork and animal derivatives, alcohol and ethanol, processing aids and ingredient sources, or sanitation or ritual cleansing. This is a limit of the public evidence and does not prove that the body has no internal rule.
The disclosure measure considers whether the position is publicly understandable, not whether it is the most restrictive position. A position disclosed within a recognized scholarly range is not penalized simply because another body follows a different view.
What information could change the assessment
This section explains what evidence could support a higher score for Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York. It does not mean a control is absent because the reviewed public record did not establish it. Any submission must match the particular organization being assessed, identify its dates and scope, and show who was responsible for implementation and decision-making.
Qualifying records can be public or submitted privately through the secure evidence pathway. Private records can support evidence that controls or operations are in place when they can be authenticated, but they do not support public-transparency credit unless the organization makes the material information public.
- Who controls the organization (Metric 2 — Ownership and control): A current authoritative ownership filing or authenticated controlled record for Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York that identifies beneficial owners, ownership percentages, voting or governance rights, controlling persons, related entities, and conflict controls for the particular organization being assessed.
- Who leads and makes certification decisions (Metric 3 — Governance and accountable leadership): A current Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York governing-body roster and organizational chart identifying accountable leaders, their roles, the basis for their appointment or authority, management responsibilities, and organization-level accountability for certification decisions.
- Whether personnel are qualified and authorized (Metric 4 — Personnel competence and authorization): A current Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York personnel roster or independently assessed controlled record identifying auditors, technical experts, reviewers, contractors, qualifications, sector experience, halal and audit training, authorization scope, assignments, monitoring, and competence review.
- Who has halal authority and takes the final halal decision (Metric 5 — Islamic authority and halal decision): Current Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York records identifying the Islamic-affairs experts or decision body, their qualifications and appointment, the jurisprudential basis, review responsibility, organization-level authority, and traceable participation in final halal decisions.
- How audits and facility checks are carried out (Metric 6 — Halal audit method and facility verification): A current controlled Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York audit procedure, with 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.
- How conflicts are managed and decisions kept separate (Metric 7 — Impartiality and decision separation): A current Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York impartiality and decision-separation policy, plus implementation records identifying conflict review, separation from consultancy, oversight membership, and separation among audit, technical review, Islamic review, and certification decision.
- What standard and certification scope apply (Metric 8 — Standards, scheme, and certification scope): A current Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York standard or scheme record identifying its version, effective date, covered sectors and locations, exclusions, supplementary schemes, precedence rules, certificate scope, and responsible issuing organization.
- What certification criteria and positions are publicly available (Metric 9 — Public certification criteria and position disclosure): A current public Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York 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.
- How certificates and marks can be checked (Metric 10 — Certificate traceability and mark control): A current public Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York 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.
- How complaints, appeals, and corrections are handled (Metric 11 — Complaints, appeals, and corrections): A current public Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York procedure identifying submission routes, acknowledgement and response timing, independent review, records, re-examination, corrective action, and protections against retaliation or equivalent fairness protections.
- Whether current operations match the workload (Metric 12 — Operating history and demonstrated capacity): Current independently verifiable Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York operating records showing its timeline, active clients or certificates, sectors and locations served, workload, surveillance activity, and competent personnel capacity matched to that workload.
Corrections, appeals, and claiming this certification body
The Halal Integrity Certification program of Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York, Inc., 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 their identity, role, and authority to act for the particular organization being assessed. That authority must be verified through qualifying documentation and an independently confirmable official contact channel. A claim remains private and pending until review. It does not give the claimant editorial control, reveal other submissions, or automatically change an article, Credibility Score, Grade, or ranking.
A correction request should identify the particular organization being assessed, the 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 does the review give the program a 22% Credibility Score and Grade F?
The assessment places most weight on evidence that leadership, personnel, halal decision-making, and halal-specific audits are properly qualified and controlled. This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization. It also did not find public disclosure of detailed personnel qualifications, formal impartiality policies, or a formal complaints and appeals process.
Is the certification program currently independently accredited?
This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization. Specifically, no current halal accreditation or foreign national halal authority recognition was publicly verified for the Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York Halal Integrity Certification program.
Does the low score mean that every certificate is invalid?
No. This assessment measures structural accountability, transparency, and verifiable credentials, not the religious validity of specific products. The article does not rule that every certificate is invalid or infer anyone's religion or intent.
Why does the review not include private documents?
The methodology relies on public records and publicly verifiable evidence. The organization may submit responsive controlled documents through the secure documentary-evidence form.
What could improve the certifier's score?
Publishing full ownership details, exact personnel authorizations, formal impartiality policies, and a formal complaints and appeals process can improve the score.
References
View the controlling HIPS publication