Shariah Council USA Comprehensive Accountability Assessment: 1% Credibility Score, Grade F

Accountability and oversight

Halal certification asks the Muslim community to rely on a religious conclusion and lets a product or business be presented as halal. The Qur’an says, “Do not follow what you have no sure knowledge of” (17:36), and calls for verification before acting on consequential information (49:6). Shariah Council of United States of America operates a halal certification program for hand-slaughtered Zabiha meat and publicly describes its strict hand-slaughter requirement and verification process. This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization. The organization also does not publicly disclose detailed certification standards, its legal ownership structure, or the names and qualifications of the people responsible for audits and Islamic rulings. [1] [2]

Organization and accreditation scope

This assessment concerns the Shariah Council of United States of America halal certification program, located at 2483 65th Street, Brooklyn, NY 11204. The program shares an address and affiliation with IQRA Masjid Community and Tradition, and it partners with the United States Chaplain Force. The halal certification program is assessed independently. [1] [2]

This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization. The organization does not present, and the assessment did not locate, current evidence of halal accreditation or recognition from qualifying comprehensive governmental or recognized independent accreditation authorities. In practical terms, no independent accreditor was found that had already examined the organization’s certification system, so first-party claims receive only the limited credit supported by the reviewed record.

Halal Industry Exposé · Comprehensive Accountability Assessment

Shariah Council of United States of America halal certification program Organizational accountability and public certification-criteria disclosure: 1% Credibility Score · Grade F · Insufficiently substantiated

Moderate confidence. This assessment gives the Shariah Council of United States of America halal certification program a 1% Credibility Score (Grade F). The review found public information about a strict hand-slaughter requirement and verification process. But it could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization, and the reviewed record did not establish enough evidence about operating controls or public accountability to support relying on the score alone. The publicly available information also did not establish legal ownership, accountable personnel, or their qualifications. Missing public information does not prove these controls or people do not exist; it means the reviewed public record did not confirm them.

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 1.2223 out of 100, ordinarily displayed as 1%.

Detailed evidence

Why each category received its result

1. 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. 2 checks were fully supported, 1 check had partial support, and 5 checks remained unverified.

   12.62% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.

   View the detailed evidence and calculation

   8 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.

   0.6309 of 5 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

   0.3309 of 4.5000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.3000 of 0.3000 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Legal identity and standing earns 1.0625 of 5 points. Of 8 enumerated subrequirements, 2 fulfilled, 1 partial, 5 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 12.62 percent: 8 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 0.3309 competence + 0.3000 public accountability = 0.6309 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 1.C1 — not verified: The certificate issuer is a resolvable legal entity.

      Evidence route: Public source. The operating name, Brooklyn address, current website, inspection activity, and a client certification claim are public, but an exact legal entity registration and the legal relationship to affiliated organizations were not independently verified.

   2. Requirement 1.C2 — not verified: The entity is active or otherwise legally authorized to operate.

      Evidence route: Public source. The operating name, Brooklyn address, current website, inspection activity, and a client certification claim are public, but an exact legal entity registration and the legal relationship to affiliated organizations were not independently verified.

   3. Requirement 1.C3 — not verified: Every public operating name, DBA, division, or brand used for certification is connected to the issuer.

      Evidence route: Public source. The operating name, Brooklyn address, current website, inspection activity, and a client certification claim are public, but an exact legal entity registration and the legal relationship to affiliated organizations were not independently verified.

   4. Requirement 1.C4 — not verified: Material parent, subsidiary, affiliate, and predecessor relationships affecting certification authority are documented.

      Evidence route: Public source. The operating name, Brooklyn address, current website, inspection activity, and a client certification claim are public, but an exact legal entity registration and the legal relationship to affiliated organizations were not independently verified.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 1.O1 — not verified: Current certificates, contracts, or accreditation identify the same accountable issuer.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

   2. Requirement 1.O2 — partial: The operating location and jurisdiction correspond to the entity or a documented branch.

      Evidence route: Public source. The Brooklyn address is public and corresponds to the operating location, but the exact legal entity registration is not verified.

      Public sources: Source 1

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 1.P1 — fulfilled: The public can identify the accountable issuer and operating name.

      Evidence route: Public source. The operating name and Brooklyn address are publicly available.

      Public sources: Source 1

   2. Requirement 1.P2 — fulfilled: The website, certificate, and public registry do not present materially conflicting issuer identities.

      Evidence route: Public source. The website presents the operating name without materially conflicting issuer identities.

      Public sources: Source 1

   Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.

2. 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. None of the 9 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

   9 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.

   0.0000 of 8 weighted points. not publicly verified.

   Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.

   Competence contribution

   0.0000 of 7.2000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.0000 of 0.4800 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Ownership and control earns 0.0000 of 8 points. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 9 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 9 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

   1. Requirement 2.C1 — not verified: Ultimate owners or members are identified.

      Evidence route: Public source. No responsive evidence established equity ownership, nonprofit governing control, controlling persons, voting rights, related parties, or conflicts for the assessed certification program.

   2. Requirement 2.C2 — not verified: Ownership percentages or interests are established.

      Evidence route: Public source. No responsive evidence established equity ownership, nonprofit governing control, controlling persons, voting rights, related parties, or conflicts for the assessed certification program.

   3. Requirement 2.C3 — not verified: Voting, management, or equivalent control rights are established.

      Evidence route: Public source. No responsive evidence established equity ownership, nonprofit governing control, controlling persons, voting rights, related parties, or conflicts for the assessed certification program.

   4. Requirement 2.C4 — not verified: Related entities that could affect control are identified.

      Evidence route: Public source. No responsive evidence established equity ownership, nonprofit governing control, controlling persons, voting rights, related parties, or conflicts for the assessed certification program.

   5. Requirement 2.C5 — not verified: Ownership continuity is established or preserved through istiṣḥāb absent contrary evidence.

      Evidence route: Public source. No responsive evidence established equity ownership, nonprofit governing control, controlling persons, voting rights, related parties, or conflicts for the assessed certification program.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 2.O1 — not verified: Ownership and control records are current, maintained, and available to an authorized verifier.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

   2. Requirement 2.O2 — not verified: No current record contradicts the established owner or control structure.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. 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: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

   2. Requirement 2.P2 — not verified: Private percentages, taxpayer data, signatures, and personal addresses need not be published when authoritative evidence establishes them.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

   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. 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. None of the 10 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.

   0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.

   View the detailed evidence and calculation

   10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.

   0.0000 of 14 weighted points. not publicly verified.

   Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.

   Competence contribution

   0.0000 of 12.6000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.0000 of 0.8400 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Accountable leadership and governance earns 0.0000 of 14 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 10 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 3.C1 — not verified: Senior leadership is identified.

      Evidence route: Public source. The website describes a group of religious leaders, imams, and community members, but current accountable leaders, appointments, roles, monitoring, and certification authority are not identified. Current activity supports only limited operational evidence.

   2. Requirement 3.C2 — not verified: Organizational structure and reporting lines are defined.

      Evidence route: Public source. The website describes a group of religious leaders, imams, and community members, but current accountable leaders, appointments, roles, monitoring, and certification authority are not identified. Current activity supports only limited operational evidence.

   3. Requirement 3.C3 — not verified: Certification decision authority is assigned.

      Evidence route: Public source. The website describes a group of religious leaders, imams, and community members, but current accountable leaders, appointments, roles, monitoring, and certification authority are not identified. Current activity supports only limited operational evidence.

   4. Requirement 3.C4 — not verified: Required governance, impartiality, and Islamic-affairs committees exist.

      Evidence route: Public source. The website describes a group of religious leaders, imams, and community members, but current accountable leaders, appointments, roles, monitoring, and certification authority are not identified. Current activity supports only limited operational evidence.

   5. Requirement 3.C5 — not verified: Senior management is accountable for the certification system.

      Evidence route: Public source. The website describes a group of religious leaders, imams, and community members, but current accountable leaders, appointments, roles, monitoring, and certification authority are not identified. Current activity supports only limited operational evidence.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 3.O1 — not verified: Governance roles and committees are implemented and reviewed.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

   2. Requirement 3.O2 — not verified: Certification decisions follow assigned authority.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

   3. Requirement 3.O3 — not verified: Management review and internal oversight occur.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 3.P1 — not verified: Responsible leadership and principal governance roles are publicly identifiable.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. The public page describes a group of religious leaders, imams, and community members but does not identify responsible leadership or principal governance roles.

   2. Requirement 3.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who is accountable for halal decisions and certification decisions.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. The public page does not identify who is accountable for halal decisions and certification decisions.

   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. 4. Qualified personnel

   What this means in plain English: This category asks whether the people doing audits, reviews, and decisions are identified, qualified, authorized, and kept competent. None of the 14 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.

   0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.

   View the detailed evidence and calculation

   14 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.

   0.0000 of 18 weighted points. not publicly verified.

   Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.

   Competence contribution

   0.0000 of 16.2000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.0000 of 1.0800 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Qualified personnel earns 0.0000 of 18 points. Of 14 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 14 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 14 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 4.C1 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for technical auditors.

      Evidence route: Public source. Current inspection activity is shown, but the auditors, technical reviewers, qualifications, training, authorization, assignments, and monitoring records are not publicly identified.

   2. Requirement 4.C2 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for Islamic-affairs experts.

      Evidence route: Public source. Current inspection activity is shown, but the auditors, technical reviewers, qualifications, training, authorization, assignments, and monitoring records are not publicly identified.

   3. Requirement 4.C3 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for reviewers and decision makers.

      Evidence route: Public source. Current inspection activity is shown, but the auditors, technical reviewers, qualifications, training, authorization, assignments, and monitoring records are not publicly identified.

   4. Requirement 4.C4 — not verified: Muslim-status requirements are applied where the governing standard requires them.

      Evidence route: Public source. Current inspection activity is shown, but the auditors, technical reviewers, qualifications, training, authorization, assignments, and monitoring records are not publicly identified.

   5. Requirement 4.C5 — not verified: Training, education, experience, and sector competence are defined.

      Evidence route: Public source. Current inspection activity is shown, but the auditors, technical reviewers, qualifications, training, authorization, assignments, and monitoring records are not publicly identified.

   6. Requirement 4.C6 — not verified: Authorization, assignment, monitoring, and performance review are controlled.

      Evidence route: Public source. Current inspection activity is shown, but the auditors, technical reviewers, qualifications, training, authorization, assignments, and monitoring records are not publicly identified.

   7. Requirement 4.C7 — not verified: External personnel and contractors satisfy the same applicable requirements.

      Evidence route: Public source. Current inspection activity is shown, but the auditors, technical reviewers, qualifications, training, authorization, assignments, and monitoring records are not publicly identified.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 4.O1 — not verified: Current personnel records demonstrate qualification and authorization.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

   2. Requirement 4.O2 — not verified: Audit teams contain the required technical and Islamic expertise.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

   3. Requirement 4.O3 — not verified: Assignments match sector and scope competence.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

   4. Requirement 4.O4 — not verified: Personnel performance and continuing competence are monitored.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 4.P1 — not verified: Responsible personnel roles are publicly identifiable.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

   2. Requirement 4.P2 — not verified: A reasonable public qualification basis is available for principal technical and Islamic authorities.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

   3. Requirement 4.P3 — not verified: Private personnel files, degree numbers, and every assignment record need not be published when accreditation verifies competence.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

   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. 5. Islamic authority and halal decision rights

   What this means in plain English: This category asks who provides the Islamic review, what authority that person or body has, and who makes the final halal decision. 1 check had partial support, and 10 checks remained unverified.

   1.50% 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.

   0.2700 of 18 weighted points. not publicly verified.

   Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.

   Competence contribution

   0.0000 of 16.2000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.2700 of 1.0800 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Islamic authority and halal decision rights earns 0.6750 of 18 points. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 1 partial, 10 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 1.50 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.2700 public accountability = 0.2700 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 5.C1 — not verified: Qualified Muslim Islamic-affairs experts are appointed.

      Evidence route: Public source. The organization publishes detailed hand-slaughter and religious requirements and describes religious leadership, but the qualified Islamic reviewers, appointments, review duties, and final halal decision authority are not independently verified.

   2. Requirement 5.C2 — not verified: Muslim decision makers are used where required.

      Evidence route: Public source. The organization publishes detailed hand-slaughter and religious requirements and describes religious leadership, but the qualified Islamic reviewers, appointments, review duties, and final halal decision authority are not independently verified.

   3. Requirement 5.C3 — not verified: The Islamic-affairs committee has defined composition and authority.

      Evidence route: Public source. The organization publishes detailed hand-slaughter and religious requirements and describes religious leadership, but the qualified Islamic reviewers, appointments, review duties, and final halal decision authority are not independently verified.

   4. Requirement 5.C4 — not verified: Halal interpretations, disputed questions, and escalations have a controlled decision path.

      Evidence route: Public source. The organization publishes detailed hand-slaughter and religious requirements and describes religious leadership, but the qualified Islamic reviewers, appointments, review duties, and final halal decision authority are not independently verified.

   5. Requirement 5.C5 — not verified: Islamic authority is independent of sales and client pressure.

      Evidence route: Public source. The organization publishes detailed hand-slaughter and religious requirements and describes religious leadership, but the qualified Islamic reviewers, appointments, review duties, and final halal decision authority are not independently verified.

   6. Requirement 5.C6 — not verified: Final halal and certification decision rights are unambiguous.

      Evidence route: Public source. The organization publishes detailed hand-slaughter and religious requirements and describes religious leadership, but the qualified Islamic reviewers, appointments, review duties, and final halal decision authority are not independently verified.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 5.O1 — not verified: Islamic experts participate in audit, review, and decision functions as required.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

   2. Requirement 5.O2 — not verified: Committee or expert decisions are documented and implemented.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

   3. Requirement 5.O3 — not verified: Certification cannot be issued contrary to the authorized halal decision.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 5.P1 — partial: The principal Islamic authority or committee is publicly identifiable.

      Evidence route: Public source. The organization publicly presents itself as a Shariah council of religious leaders and imams, but it does not identify the principal authority or current committee members.

      Public sources: Source 1

   2. Requirement 5.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who has final halal-decision authority.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. The public page does not state who has final halal-decision authority.

   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. 6. Halal-specific audit and certification controls

   What this means in plain English: This category asks what the certifier actually checks, what halal-specific evidence it records, and how findings lead to approval, follow-up, or withdrawal. None of the 15 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.

   0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.

   View the detailed evidence and calculation

   15 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.

   0.0000 of 14 weighted points. not publicly verified.

   Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.

   Competence contribution

   0.0000 of 12.6000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.0000 of 0.8400 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Halal-specific audit and certification controls earns 0.0000 of 14 points. Of 15 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 15 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 15 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 6.C1 — not verified: Application and application review are controlled.

      Evidence route: Public source. The site claims thorough assessment, social media shows current inspections, and a third-party client reports certification. The application review, audit plan, ingredients and process review, findings, corrective actions, report, surveillance, and assigned personnel are not fully documented.

   2. 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 site claims thorough assessment, social media shows current inspections, and a third-party client reports certification. The application review, audit plan, ingredients and process review, findings, corrective actions, report, surveillance, and assigned personnel are not fully documented.

   3. Requirement 6.C3 — not verified: Stage-one and stage-two audits are used where applicable.

      Evidence route: Public source. The site claims thorough assessment, social media shows current inspections, and a third-party client reports certification. The application review, audit plan, ingredients and process review, findings, corrective actions, report, surveillance, and assigned personnel are not fully documented.

   4. Requirement 6.C4 — not verified: Audit teams perform halal-specific document and facility review.

      Evidence route: Public source. The site claims thorough assessment, social media shows current inspections, and a third-party client reports certification. The application review, audit plan, ingredients and process review, findings, corrective actions, report, surveillance, and assigned personnel are not fully documented.

   5. Requirement 6.C5 — not verified: Sampling, inspection, and accredited laboratory testing are controlled where applicable.

      Evidence route: Public source. The site claims thorough assessment, social media shows current inspections, and a third-party client reports certification. The application review, audit plan, ingredients and process review, findings, corrective actions, report, surveillance, and assigned personnel are not fully documented.

   6. Requirement 6.C6 — not verified: Audit reports and nonconformities are documented.

      Evidence route: Public source. The site claims thorough assessment, social media shows current inspections, and a third-party client reports certification. The application review, audit plan, ingredients and process review, findings, corrective actions, report, surveillance, and assigned personnel are not fully documented.

   7. Requirement 6.C7 — not verified: Independent review and certification decisions are controlled.

      Evidence route: Public source. The site claims thorough assessment, social media shows current inspections, and a third-party client reports certification. The application review, audit plan, ingredients and process review, findings, corrective actions, report, surveillance, and assigned personnel are not fully documented.

   8. Requirement 6.C8 — not verified: Surveillance and recertification are controlled.

      Evidence route: Public source. The site claims thorough assessment, social media shows current inspections, and a third-party client reports certification. The application review, audit plan, ingredients and process review, findings, corrective actions, report, surveillance, and assigned personnel are not fully documented.

   9. Requirement 6.C9 — not verified: Suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.

      Evidence route: Public source. The site claims thorough assessment, social media shows current inspections, and a third-party client reports certification. The application review, audit plan, ingredients and process review, findings, corrective actions, report, surveillance, and assigned personnel are not fully documented.

   10. Requirement 6.C10 — not verified: Outsourced work remains under HCB responsibility.

       Evidence route: Public source. The site claims thorough assessment, social media shows current inspections, and a third-party client reports certification. The application review, audit plan, ingredients and process review, findings, corrective actions, report, surveillance, and assigned personnel are not fully documented.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 6.O1 — not verified: The current certification system implements each applicable control.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

   2. Requirement 6.O2 — not verified: Surveillance or accreditation assessment verifies continued implementation.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

   3. Requirement 6.O3 — not verified: No affirmative evidence shows reliance on an unauthorized third party for the halal decision.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 6.P1 — not verified: The certification pathway and principal stages are publicly understandable.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. The public page does not explain a certification pathway or its principal stages.

   2. Requirement 6.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the governing scheme and certificate status consequences.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. The public page does not identify a governing certification scheme or certificate-status consequences.

   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. 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. 1 check had partial support, and 10 checks remained unverified.

   1.50% 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.

   0.0900 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

   0.0900 of 0.3600 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Impartiality, conflicts, and independence earns 0.2250 of 6 points. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 1 partial, 10 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 1.50 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0900 public accountability = 0.0900 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 7.C1 — not verified: An impartiality policy and risk process exist.

      Evidence route: Public source. A general statement that the body is not competing with other groups does not establish conflict controls or separation among inspection, review, and certification decisions. No operational implementation evidence was located.

   2. Requirement 7.C2 — not verified: An impartiality committee or equivalent mechanism operates.

      Evidence route: Public source. A general statement that the body is not competing with other groups does not establish conflict controls or separation among inspection, review, and certification decisions. No operational implementation evidence was located.

   3. Requirement 7.C3 — not verified: Consulting and certification conflicts are prohibited or controlled.

      Evidence route: Public source. A general statement that the body is not competing with other groups does not establish conflict controls or separation among inspection, review, and certification decisions. No operational implementation evidence was located.

   4. Requirement 7.C4 — not verified: Financial, commercial, and relationship threats are identified and mitigated.

      Evidence route: Public source. A general statement that the body is not competing with other groups does not establish conflict controls or separation among inspection, review, and certification decisions. No operational implementation evidence was located.

   5. Requirement 7.C5 — not verified: Recusal and independent decision rules exist.

      Evidence route: Public source. A general statement that the body is not competing with other groups does not establish conflict controls or separation among inspection, review, and certification decisions. No operational implementation evidence was located.

   6. Requirement 7.C6 — not verified: Outsourced and external personnel are subject to impartiality and confidentiality controls.

      Evidence route: Public source. A general statement that the body is not competing with other groups does not establish conflict controls or separation among inspection, review, and certification decisions. No operational implementation evidence was located.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 7.O1 — not verified: Impartiality risks are reviewed periodically.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

   2. Requirement 7.O2 — not verified: Conflicts and recusals are documented.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

   3. Requirement 7.O3 — not verified: Certification decisions remain independent of audit, sales, and consulting pressure.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 7.P1 — partial: The impartiality commitment and complaint route are publicly accessible.

      Evidence route: Public source. A public contact email is available for questions and concerns, but no impartiality commitment or dedicated complaint and appeal route is identified.

      Public sources: Source 1

   2. Requirement 7.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the separation between certification and prohibited consulting.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. The public page does not explain separation between certification and prohibited consulting.

   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. 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. None of the 10 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.

   0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.

   View the detailed evidence and calculation

   10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.

   0.0000 of 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

   0.0000 of 2.7000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.0000 of 0.1800 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Standards, scheme, and certification scope earns 0.0000 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 10 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 8.C1 — not verified: Governing standard names and versions are controlled.

      Evidence route: Public source. The hand-slaughter-only rule, invocation, cut, drainage, and slaughterer requirements are publicly detailed, and current activity supports implementation. A complete scheme, product scope, exclusions, and change-control record are not public.

   2. Requirement 8.C2 — not verified: Accredited or claimed categories, activities, products, sites, and locations are defined.

      Evidence route: Public source. The hand-slaughter-only rule, invocation, cut, drainage, and slaughterer requirements are publicly detailed, and current activity supports implementation. A complete scheme, product scope, exclusions, and change-control record are not public.

   3. Requirement 8.C3 — not verified: Exclusions and limitations are defined.

      Evidence route: Public source. The hand-slaughter-only rule, invocation, cut, drainage, and slaughterer requirements are publicly detailed, and current activity supports implementation. A complete scheme, product scope, exclusions, and change-control record are not public.

   4. Requirement 8.C4 — not verified: Supplementary destination-market schemes are controlled.

      Evidence route: Public source. The hand-slaughter-only rule, invocation, cut, drainage, and slaughterer requirements are publicly detailed, and current activity supports implementation. A complete scheme, product scope, exclusions, and change-control record are not public.

   5. Requirement 8.C5 — not verified: A precedence rule resolves conflicts between base and supplementary requirements.

      Evidence route: Public source. The hand-slaughter-only rule, invocation, cut, drainage, and slaughterer requirements are publicly detailed, and current activity supports implementation. A complete scheme, product scope, exclusions, and change-control record are not public.

   6. Requirement 8.C6 — not verified: Clients receive the applicable version and scope.

      Evidence route: Public source. The hand-slaughter-only rule, invocation, cut, drainage, and slaughterer requirements are publicly detailed, and current activity supports implementation. A complete scheme, product scope, exclusions, and change-control record are not public.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 8.O1 — not verified: Certificates and audits use the correct current standard and scope.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

   2. Requirement 8.O2 — not verified: Scope changes and version changes are controlled.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 8.P1 — not verified: The principal standard, version, category, and certification scope are publicly identifiable.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. The public page does not identify a certification standard, version, category, or authoritative certification scope.

   2. Requirement 8.P2 — not verified: The public can determine whether supplementary schemes apply and how conflicts are resolved.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. The public page does not identify supplementary destination-market schemes or conflict and precedence rules.

   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. 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

   1. 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.

   2. 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.

   3. 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

   1. Requirement 9.O1 — not verified: Public criteria match the operative certification scheme.

      Evidence route: Public source. Operational evidence is isolated, stale, incomplete, or difficult to match to the complete criteria set.

   2. Requirement 9.O2 — not verified: Changes to criteria are reflected in the controlled public version.

      Evidence route: Public source. Operational evidence is isolated, stale, incomplete, or difficult to match to the complete criteria set.

   3. Requirement 9.O3 — not verified: Supplementary-scheme positions and precedence are kept current.

      Evidence route: Public source. Operational evidence is isolated, stale, incomplete, or difficult to match to the complete criteria set.

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 9.P1 — fulfilled: Religious or jurisprudential basis.

      Evidence route: Public source. The public pages state that certification follows the Qur’an, Sunnah, and Shariah principles and describes a strict hand-slaughter Zabiha position.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   2. Requirement 9.P2 — not verified: Supplementary destination-market schemes and precedence.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public pages do not identify supplementary destination-market schemes or state how conflicting scheme requirements are resolved.

   3. Requirement 9.P3 — fulfilled: Mechanical poultry slaughter.

      Evidence route: Public source. The accepted public assessment verifies that the organization publicly outlines its strict hand-slaughter requirement, including invocation of Allah's name, severing specified structures, blood drainage, and a Muslim slaughterer.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

   4. Requirement 9.P4 — fulfilled: Mechanical-line tasmiyah.

      Evidence route: Public source. The accepted public assessment verifies that the organization publicly outlines its strict hand-slaughter requirement, including invocation of Allah's name, severing specified structures, blood drainage, and a Muslim slaughterer.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

   5. Requirement 9.P5 — fulfilled: Slaughter-person requirements and supervision.

      Evidence route: Public source. The accepted public assessment verifies that the organization publicly outlines its strict hand-slaughter requirement, including invocation of Allah's name, severing specified structures, blood drainage, and a Muslim slaughterer.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

   6. Requirement 9.P6 — not verified: Stunning and reversibility.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public pages do not state whether stunning is permitted or prohibited or, if permitted, the reversibility and animal-survival controls.

   7. Requirement 9.P7 — not verified: Alive-at-cut control.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public pages do not state the alive-at-cut verification method or pre-slaughter death controls.

   8. Requirement 9.P8 — fulfilled: Minimum vessel requirement.

      Evidence route: Public source. The accepted public assessment verifies that the organization publicly outlines its strict hand-slaughter requirement, including invocation of Allah's name, severing specified structures, blood drainage, and a Muslim slaughterer.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

   9. Requirement 9.P9 — not verified: Pork and animal derivatives.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public pages do not state the certification position on pork and animal derivatives.

   10. Requirement 9.P10 — not verified: Alcohol and ethanol.

       Evidence route: Not independently verified. The pages discuss income from alcohol sales but do not state the certification standard for alcohol, ethanol, carriers, residues, or production use.

   11. Requirement 9.P11 — not verified: Processing aids and ingredient sources.

       Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public pages do not state requirements for processing aids, enzymes, cultures, flavors, or ingredient-source verification.

   12. Requirement 9.P12 — not verified: Shared lines and cross-contact.

       Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public pages do not state the certification requirements for shared lines, equipment, segregation, or cross-contact.

   13. Requirement 9.P13 — not verified: Sanitation or ritual cleansing.

       Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public pages do not state sanitation or ritual-cleansing requirements.

   14. Requirement 9.P14 — not verified: Certificate-level position communication.

       Evidence route: Not independently verified. The pages say certificate verification occurs by email but do not establish that certificate-level records communicate the applicable halal positions and scope limitations.

   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. 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. None of the 10 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.

    0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.

    View the detailed evidence and calculation

    10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.

    0.0000 of 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

    0.0000 of 2.7000 points.

    Public-accountability contribution

    0.0000 of 0.1800 points.

    Recorded category conclusion: Certificate traceability and mark control earns 0.0000 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 10 not independently verified.

    Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

    Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

    A. Control assurance · 60 percent

    1. 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. The body publishes an email-based certificate-verification method and a third-party client reports certification. It does not publish a directory, and identifiers, dates, status changes, and misuse controls remain unavailable.

    2. Requirement 10.C2 — not verified: A certified-client and product directory is controlled.

       Evidence route: Public source. The body publishes an email-based certificate-verification method and a third-party client reports certification. It does not publish a directory, and identifiers, dates, status changes, and misuse controls remain unavailable.

    3. Requirement 10.C3 — not verified: Certificate status, renewal, suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.

       Evidence route: Public source. The body publishes an email-based certificate-verification method and a third-party client reports certification. It does not publish a directory, and identifiers, dates, status changes, and misuse controls remain unavailable.

    4. Requirement 10.C4 — not verified: Halal-mark licensing, display, reproduction, translation, and misuse are controlled.

       Evidence route: Public source. The body publishes an email-based certificate-verification method and a third-party client reports certification. It does not publish a directory, and identifiers, dates, status changes, and misuse controls remain unavailable.

    5. Requirement 10.C5 — not verified: Verification records are traceable to the exact certificate and issuer.

       Evidence route: Public source. The body publishes an email-based certificate-verification method and a third-party client reports certification. It does not publish a directory, and identifiers, dates, status changes, and misuse controls remain unavailable.

    B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

    1. Requirement 10.O1 — not verified: Certificates and marks are monitored in use.

       Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

    2. Requirement 10.O2 — not verified: Misuse and expired status are acted upon.

       Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

    3. Requirement 10.O3 — not verified: Directory and status records are maintained.

       Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

    C. Public evidence · 15 percent

    1. Requirement 10.P1 — not verified: Consumers can verify current certificate status through a working HTTPS route, searchable directory, QR destination, or equivalent accessible mechanism.

       Evidence route: Not independently verified. No working public certificate-status lookup or equivalent verification mechanism appears on the cited page.

    2. Requirement 10.P2 — not verified: Public verification shows enough information to distinguish holder, scope, site or product, identifier, and validity.

       Evidence route: Not independently verified. The cited page does not display certificate holder, scope, site or product, identifier, and validity information.

    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. 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. 2 checks had partial support, and 8 checks remained unverified.

    3.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.

    View the detailed evidence and calculation

    10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.

    0.0300 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

    0.0300 of 0.0600 points.

    Recorded category conclusion: Complaints, appeals, and corrections earns 0.0750 of 1 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 2 partial, 8 not independently verified.

    Why this metric earned 3.00 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

    Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0300 public accountability = 0.0300 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

    A. Control assurance · 60 percent

    1. Requirement 11.C1 — not verified: Complaints and appeals have documented procedures.

       Evidence route: Public source. A public email route accepts complaints and concerns, but response time, independent appeal review, recordkeeping, non-retaliation, and correction handling are not disclosed.

    2. Requirement 11.C2 — not verified: Independent committee or reviewer requirements are defined.

       Evidence route: Public source. A public email route accepts complaints and concerns, but response time, independent appeal review, recordkeeping, non-retaliation, and correction handling are not disclosed.

    3. Requirement 11.C3 — not verified: Islamic-affairs expertise participates where required.

       Evidence route: Public source. A public email route accepts complaints and concerns, but response time, independent appeal review, recordkeeping, non-retaliation, and correction handling are not disclosed.

    4. Requirement 11.C4 — not verified: Investigation, decision, communication, corrective action, and records are controlled.

       Evidence route: Public source. A public email route accepts complaints and concerns, but response time, independent appeal review, recordkeeping, non-retaliation, and correction handling are not disclosed.

    5. Requirement 11.C5 — not verified: Conflicts and recusals are controlled.

       Evidence route: Public source. A public email route accepts complaints and concerns, but response time, independent appeal review, recordkeeping, non-retaliation, and correction handling are not disclosed.

    B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

    1. Requirement 11.O1 — not verified: The mechanism is implemented and reviewed.

       Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

    2. Requirement 11.O2 — not verified: Complainants and appellants are informed of outcomes.

       Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

    3. Requirement 11.O3 — not verified: Valid complaints can trigger investigation and certificate action.

       Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

    C. Public evidence · 15 percent

    1. Requirement 11.P1 — partial: A working public route or contact method exists for complaints and appeals.

       Evidence route: Public source. The page provides a public email for questions and concerns, but it is not presented as a complete complaint and appeal route.

       Public sources: Source 1

    2. Requirement 11.P2 — partial: The submission pathway and responsible organization are clear.

       Evidence route: Public source. The public page identifies the organization and a contact email, while the submission pathway, review responsibility, and escalation process remain incomplete.

       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.

12. 12. Operating history and demonstrated capacity

    What this means in plain English: This category asks whether the organization has a verifiable operating record and enough qualified people and resources for the certification work it claims to perform. 1 check had partial support, and 8 checks remained unverified.

    1.50% 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.

    0.0300 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

    0.0000 of 1.8000 points.

    Public-accountability contribution

    0.0300 of 0.1200 points.

    Recorded category conclusion: Operating history and demonstrated capacity earns 0.0750 of 2 points. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 1 partial, 8 not independently verified.

    Why this metric earned 1.50 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

    Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0300 public accountability = 0.0300 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

    A. Control assurance · 60 percent

    1. Requirement 12.C1 — not verified: The HCB defines competence and resource needs for each scope.

       Evidence route: Public source. Current inspection activity and one third-party certification claim support limited capacity evidence. The founding date, certificate volume, staffing, geographic reach, and longer operating history were not independently verified.

    2. Requirement 12.C2 — not verified: Audit time, staffing, sites, shifts, categories, and workload are considered.

       Evidence route: Public source. Current inspection activity and one third-party certification claim support limited capacity evidence. The founding date, certificate volume, staffing, geographic reach, and longer operating history were not independently verified.

    3. Requirement 12.C3 — not verified: External resources and outsourcing are controlled.

       Evidence route: Public source. Current inspection activity and one third-party certification claim support limited capacity evidence. The founding date, certificate volume, staffing, geographic reach, and longer operating history were not independently verified.

    4. Requirement 12.C4 — not verified: Records, internal audits, management review, and corrective action support continued delivery.

       Evidence route: Public source. Current inspection activity and one third-party certification claim support limited capacity evidence. The founding date, certificate volume, staffing, geographic reach, and longer operating history were not independently verified.

    B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

    1. Requirement 12.O1 — not verified: Current accreditation or direct evidence verifies active delivery capacity within scope.

       Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

    2. Requirement 12.O2 — not verified: Current certificates or clients demonstrate active operations.

       Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

    3. Requirement 12.O3 — not verified: Surveillance, recertification, and management review maintain capacity.

       Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

    C. Public evidence · 15 percent

    1. Requirement 12.P1 — partial: Operating history, current service scope, and accountable contact are publicly identifiable.

       Evidence route: Public source. The page identifies the organization’s general religious-guidance role and a public contact, but not its operating history or current halal-certification service scope.

       Public sources: Source 1

    2. Requirement 12.P2 — not verified: Confidential client volumes, payroll, and workload files need not be published when current accreditation verifies capacity.

       Evidence route: Not independently verified. No current exact-entity accreditation verifies confidential capacity controls for this program.

    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.

Credibility Score interpretation

• Model B assigns 0.3309 of 90 competence-assurance points, 0.0000 of 4 proportional accreditation-breadth points, and 0.8914 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.

Conclusion

Shariah Council of United States of America receives a 1.2223% Credibility Score, Grade F. The organization publicly outlines its strict hand-slaughter requirement and verification process, but this review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization, ownership, or accountable personnel. The names, qualifications, and assignments of people responsible for Islamic rulings and audits are not publicly verified. These are limits of the reviewed evidence, not proof that an undisclosed control or person does not exist.

This accountability assessment uses the published USDHS methodology as a framework for reviewing evidence. It does not replace the controlling HIPS standard or make a religious ruling about every certificate or product.

What the certifier publicly explains about its rules

This review asks a question separate from accreditation: can an ordinary consumer identify the standard or scheme—the set of certification rules—its current version, the authority that approved it, and the material halal positions that govern this body’s certifications? The public information is fragmented, stale, difficult to find, or insufficient to identify the complete current position.

For governing documents, scope, and certificate communication, the reviewed sources show that the certifier says it follows 'Islamic procedures' and 'Shariah law' but does not identify a specific named standard or manual. It refers to general Shariah principles, such as forbidding what is haram, but does not identify a particular madhhab or jurisprudential authority. [3] [4]

The remaining reviewed questions could not be classified with confidence from public disclosures. No specific version or effective date is disclosed. The certifier mentions meat and businesses, but does not provide a comprehensive list of certified sectors or material exclusions beyond machine-slaughtered meat. It does not disclose supplementary schemes or their order of precedence, or whether material religious positions are communicated on certificates. The certifier explicitly does not publicly list certified locations, and verification is handled privately by email. These are limits of the public evidence and do not prove that the body has no internal rule.

For slaughter and poultry controls, the reviewed sources state that the certifier does not issue certifications for machine-slaughtered meat, so controls for machine-slaughtered meat are not applicable. They require cutting the trachea, esophagus, and jugular veins, and say the slaughter person must be a Muslim of sound mind and faith. [2] [3]

The remaining reviewed questions could not be classified with confidence from public disclosures. No specific position on stunning or its reversibility is disclosed. The certifier outlines the slaughter process, but does not explicitly describe controls to ensure that the animal is alive at the time of the cut or to prevent death before the cut. These are limits of the public evidence and do not prove that the body has no internal rule.

The remaining reviewed questions could not be classified with confidence from public disclosures. No specific criteria for processing pork or animal derivatives are disclosed beyond general principles. Although selling alcohol is mentioned as haram income, the public material does not disclose specific criteria for alcohol or ethanol limits, or incidental use in food processing. It also does not publicly disclose criteria for processing aids, enzymes, ingredient sources, shared lines or cross-contact with non-halal items, or sanitation and ritual cleansing of equipment. These are limits of the public evidence and do not prove that the body has no internal rule.

This disclosure review evaluates whether the position is understandable to the public, not whether it is the most restrictive position. A disclosed position within a recognized scholarly range is not penalized merely because another body follows a different view.

Evidence that could change this review

This section explains what evidence could support a higher score for Shariah Council USA. It does not mean that a control is absent merely because the reviewed public record did not establish it. Any submission must match the exact assessed entity, state its dates and scope, and show who was responsible for implementation and decision-making.

Qualifying records may be public or submitted privately through the secure evidence pathway. Private records can support assurance about a control or operation when they can be authenticated, but they do not create public-transparency credit unless the organization makes the material information public.

• Legal identity and operating status (Metric 1): A current authoritative registry or regulator record for Shariah Council USA showing the exact legal name, entity number, jurisdiction, formation date, active status, operating name, and any required certification-business registration not already established.
• Ownership and control (Metric 2): A current authoritative ownership filing or authenticated controlled record for Shariah Council USA identifying beneficial owners, ownership percentages, voting or governance rights, controlling persons, related entities, and conflict controls for the exact assessed entity.
• Governance and accountable leadership (Metric 3): A current Shariah Council USA governing-body roster and organogram, a chart of roles and reporting lines, identifying accountable leaders, their roles, appointment or authority basis, management responsibilities, and entity-level accountability for certification decisions.
• Personnel competence and authorization (Metric 4): A current Shariah Council USA 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.
• Islamic authority and halal decision (Metric 5): Current Shariah Council USA records identifying the Islamic-affairs experts or decision body, their qualifications, appointment, jurisprudential basis, review responsibility, entity-level authority, and traceable participation in final halal decisions.
• Halal audit method and facility verification (Metric 6): A current controlled Shariah Council USA audit procedure and corroborating recent files showing application and scope review, ingredients and process evaluation, on-site work, halal-specific observations, findings, corrective actions, reports, surveillance, and recertification.
• Impartiality and decision separation (Metric 7): A current Shariah Council USA impartiality and decision-separation policy, with implementation records, identifying conflict review, separation from consultancy, oversight membership, and separation among audit, technical review, Islamic review, and certification decision.
• Standards, scheme, and certification scope (Metric 8): A current Shariah Council USA standard or scheme record identifying its version, effective date, covered sectors and locations, exclusions, supplementary schemes, precedence rules, certificate scope, and responsible issuing entity.
• Public certification criteria and position disclosure (Metric 9): A current public Shariah Council USA declaration or equivalent methodology covering the governing standard and version, religious basis, scope and exclusions, practical halal positions, supplementary-scheme precedence, certificate communication, and public verification route.
• Certificate traceability and mark control (Metric 10): A current public Shariah Council USA 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 over use and misuse of the mark.
• Complaints, appeals, and corrections (Metric 11): A current public Shariah Council USA complaints, appeals, and corrections procedure identifying submission routes, acknowledgement and response timing, independent review, records, re-examination, corrective action, and non-retaliation or equivalent fairness protections.
• Operating history and demonstrated capacity (Metric 12): Current independently verifiable Shariah Council USA 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 Shariah Council of United States of America halal certification program, or another affected party, may submit responsive records through the secure documentary-evidence form. Material evidence is evaluated under the same methodology whether it raises or lowers the Credibility Score.

An authorized representative may also use Claim this certification body. The person making the claim must document their identity, role, and authority to act for the exact assessed entity. That authority must be verified through qualifying documentation and an independently confirmable official contact channel. A claim remains private and pending until it is reviewed; it does not give editorial control, disclose other submissions, or automatically change an article, Credibility Score, Grade, or ranking.

A correction request should identify the exact entity, statement, metric, source, effective dates, scope, responsible people, and requested correction. Publication does not depend on receiving a response, and no organization has a private veto over a documented finding.

Frequently asked questions

Why does the program receive a 1.2223% Credibility Score and Grade F?

The review gives its greatest weight to evidence of accountable leadership, qualified personnel, Islamic authority, and halal-specific audit capability. It did not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization, ownership, or accountable personnel in the reviewed record, which results in a low score.

Is the halal certification program currently accredited?

This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization. The organization does not present, and the assessment did not locate, current evidence of halal accreditation or recognition from qualifying comprehensive governmental or recognized independent accreditation authorities.

Does a low score mean that every certificate is invalid?

No. This assessment measures structural accountability, transparency, and verifiable credentials; it does not assess the religious validity of specific products.

Why does the review not include private documents?

The methodology relies on public records and evidence that can be publicly verified. The organization may still submit responsive controlled documents through the secure documentary-evidence form.

What could improve the certifier’s score?

A score can improve when verifiable evidence is provided about legal ownership, governance structure, personnel qualifications, detailed certification standards, current accreditation, and documented impartiality controls.

References

1. Shariah Council of United States of America Official Website
2. Shariah Council of United States of America - About Us
3. Shariah Council of United States of America - Privacy Policy
4. Q&A Section
5. Chaplain Services

Related audit-readiness guidance

• How USDHS Calculates a Halal Certification Body Credibility Score
• 2026 U.S. Halal Certification Bodies Ranked by Credibility Score
• American Halal Foundation Comprehensive Accountability Assessment: 96% Credibility Score, Grade A

Browse all USDHS Insights