Accountability and oversight
Halal certification asks the Muslim community to rely on a religious conclusion and permits a product or business to speak in the language of halal. The Qur’an commands, “Do not follow what you have no sure knowledge of” (17:36) and commands 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. The organization publicly outlines its strict hand-slaughter requirement and verification process. However, the assessment did not locate current evidence of formal halal accreditation or recognition from Tier A authorities. The organization does not publicly disclose its detailed certification standards, legal ownership structure, or the names and qualifications of its personnel responsible for audits and Islamic rulings. [1] [2]
Entity and accreditation boundary
The assessed entity is the Shariah Council of United States of America halal certification program, located at 2483 65th Street, Brooklyn, NY 11204. It shares an address and affiliation with IQRA Masjid Community and Tradition, and partners with the United States Chaplain Force. The assessment evaluates the halal certification program independently. [1] [2]
The organization does not present and the assessment did not locate current evidence of halal accreditation or recognition from Tier A governmental or recognized independent accreditation authorities. Without verified accreditation, no cumulative multiplier applies, and covered operational controls receive only the baseline operational-evidence factor where first-party claims exist.
Halal Industry Exposé · Comprehensive Accountability Assessment
Shariah Council of United States of America halal certification program. Organizational accountability: 26% · Grade F · Insufficiently substantiated
Moderate confidence. Shariah Council of United States of America receives 26%, Grade F. The organization publicly outlines its strict hand-slaughter requirement and verification process, but lacks verifiable evidence of formal halal accreditation, ownership, and accountable personnel.
This comprehensive organizational accountability assessment combines the standardized score with the documented business-practice investigation. Flags explain evidence already scored inside the eleven fixed metrics and create no separate bonus or penalty points. The article does not rule that every certificate is invalid, prove that an undisclosed control does not exist, or infer anyone’s religion or intent.
Halal Certification Body Accountability Assessment version 2.4. Source cutoff September 13, 2026. Last reviewed September 13, 2026. Raw score 25.9750 out of 100, ordinarily rounded to 26%.
Trust overview
Green flags and red flags
These flags explain evidence already scored inside the eleven fixed metrics. They do not create separate bonus or penalty points.
Green flags
Publicly detailed hand-slaughter and religious requirements
The organization publicly outlines its strict hand-slaughter requirement and verification process, including invocation of Allah’s name, severing specified structures, blood drainage, and a Muslim slaughterer.
Metrics: #5, #8
Score treatment: Supports public transparency in standards and Islamic authority.
Boundary: Does not establish complete scheme documentation or personnel authorizations.
Red flags
Names and qualifications of responsible personnel are not publicly verified
The organization does not publicly disclose the names, qualifications, and assignments of the Islamic authority or audit personnel responsible for certification decisions.
Metrics: #3, #4, #5
Score treatment: Limits control and public transparency scores in governance, personnel competence, and Islamic authority.
Boundary: Missing personnel evidence is not proof of invalidity or lack of competence.
No verified Tier A accreditation or recognition
The organization does not present and the assessment did not locate current evidence of halal accreditation or recognition from Tier A governmental or recognized independent accreditation authorities.
Metrics: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11
Score treatment: No cumulative multiplier applies, and covered operational controls receive only baseline direct evidence factors.
Boundary: Lack of accreditation does not invalidate the organization's standards, but limits implementation assurance.
Sources:
Accreditation examined
None · None. None. Not verified. Accredited None; expiry None.
Scope: The organization does not present and the assessment did not locate current evidence of halal accreditation or recognition from Tier A governmental or recognized independent accreditation authorities.
Third-party independence: No recognized independent accreditation verified.
Status factor 0 percent; scope factor 0 percent; independence factor 0 percent; accreditation assurance factor 0 percent.
How USDHS grades organizational accountability
Each metric is 60 percent control assurance, 25 percent operational evidence, and 15 percent public evidence. Government records and other authoritative public sources count even when the certifier does not reproduce them on its own website. A recognized accreditation of the exact entity and scope can support the control layer and part of operational evidence; it never creates public-evidence credit or transfers across entities without the required bridge. Classification bands: A, 90 to 100, strongly substantiated; B, 80 to 89, substantiated; C, 70 to 79, partially substantiated; D, 60 to 69, material gaps; F, 0 to 59, insufficiently substantiated.
Part 2
Numbered assessment metrics
1. Legal identity and operating status
Legal entity, jurisdiction, operating identity, formation, status, address, and required registrations.
31.25% of this metric; 1.88 of 6 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation verified.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.90 points. 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
- 50 percent evidence factor; 0.75 points. Operational implementation relies on direct evidence.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.23 points. Public transparency relies on direct evidence.
Metric conclusion: 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. Ownership and control
Beneficial owners, percentages, controlling persons, governance rights, related parties, and conflicts.
0.00% of this metric; 0.00 of 10 weighted points. unverified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation verified.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. 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
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. Operational implementation relies on direct evidence.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. Public transparency relies on direct evidence.
Metric conclusion: No responsive evidence established equity ownership, nonprofit governing control, controlling persons, voting rights, related parties, or conflicts for the assessed certification program.
3. Governance and accountable leadership
Named leadership, governing bodies, organizational structure, management responsibility, and accountable contacts.
25.00% of this metric; 3.50 of 14 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation verified.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 2.10 points. 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
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.88 points. Operational implementation relies on direct evidence.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.53 points. Public transparency relies on direct evidence.
Metric conclusion: 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. Personnel competence and authorization
Auditor, reviewer, technical-expert, and contractor qualifications, training, authorization, monitoring, and assignments.
21.25% of this metric; 3.83 of 18 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation verified.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 2.70 points. 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
- 25 percent evidence factor; 1.13 points. Operational implementation relies on direct evidence.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. Public transparency relies on direct evidence.
Metric conclusion: Current inspection activity is shown, but the auditors, technical reviewers, qualifications, training, authorization, assignments, and monitoring records are not publicly identified.
5. Islamic authority and halal decision
Qualified Islamic-affairs personnel, governing authority, jurisprudential basis, review roles, and final halal decisions.
28.75% of this metric; 5.17 of 18 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation verified.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 2.70 points. 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
- 25 percent evidence factor; 1.13 points. Operational implementation relies on direct evidence.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 1.35 points. Public transparency relies on direct evidence.
Metric conclusion: 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. Halal audit method and facility verification
Application, scope review, documents, on-site work, ingredients, processes, findings, corrections, reports, surveillance, and recertification.
35.00% of this metric; 4.90 of 14 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation verified.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 2.10 points. 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
- 50 percent evidence factor; 1.75 points. Operational implementation relies on direct evidence.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 1.05 points. Public transparency relies on direct evidence.
Metric conclusion: 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. Impartiality and decision separation
Conflicts, consultancy separation, impartiality oversight, and separation among audit, review, and certification decisions.
18.75% of this metric; 1.50 of 8 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation verified.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 1.20 points. 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
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. Operational implementation relies on direct evidence.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.30 points. Public transparency relies on direct evidence.
Metric conclusion: 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.
8. Standards, scheme, and certification scope
Governing standards, sectors, locations, exclusions, religious positions, certificate scope, and scheme boundaries.
53.75% of this metric; 2.15 of 4 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation verified.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 1.20 points. 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
- 50 percent evidence factor; 0.50 points. Operational implementation relies on direct evidence.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 75 percent evidence factor; 0.45 points. Public transparency relies on direct evidence.
Metric conclusion: 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.
9. Certificate traceability and mark control
Current certificate verification, identifiers, holders, sites, products, dates, status changes, and mark misuse controls.
46.25% of this metric; 1.85 of 4 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation verified.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 1.20 points. 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
- 50 percent evidence factor; 0.50 points. Operational implementation relies on direct evidence.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.15 points. Public transparency relies on direct evidence.
Metric conclusion: 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.
10. Complaints, appeals, and corrections
Complaint and appeal routes, timing, independent review, records, corrections, escalation, and non-retaliation.
28.75% of this metric; 0.57 of 2 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation verified.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.30 points. 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
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.13 points. Operational implementation relies on direct evidence.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 0.15 points. Public transparency relies on direct evidence.
Metric conclusion: A public email route accepts complaints and concerns, but response time, independent appeal review, recordkeeping, non-retaliation, and correction handling are not disclosed.
11. Operating history and demonstrated capacity
Corroborated timeline, current activity, clients, sectors, personnel resources, and workload matched to competent capacity.
31.25% of this metric; 0.63 of 2 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation verified.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.30 points. 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
- 50 percent evidence factor; 0.25 points. Operational implementation relies on direct evidence.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.07 points. Public transparency relies on direct evidence.
Metric conclusion: 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.
Part 3
Conclusion
Strongest findings
- Publicly detailed hand-slaughter and religious requirements.
- Current application, inspection, and client-certificate evidence.
- Public email route for complaints and verification.
Material gaps
- No verified Tier A accreditation or recognition.
- No public disclosure of legal ownership, governance structure, or impartiality controls.
- Names, qualifications, and assignments of personnel responsible for Islamic rulings and audits are not publicly verified.
Unresolved questions
- Who are the authorized personnel making final halal decisions?
- What is the legal entity and ownership structure of the certification program?
Score interpretation
- Raw score: 25.9750. The displayed score uses ordinary rounding.
Material records are rescored under the same rules, whether they raise or lower the result. Submit documentary evidence through the secure evidence and correction form.
Conclusion
Shariah Council of United States of America receives 26%, Grade F. The organization publicly outlines its strict hand-slaughter requirement and verification process, but lacks verifiable evidence of formal halal accreditation, ownership, and accountable personnel. The names, qualifications, and assignments of personnel responsible for Islamic rulings and audits are not publicly verified.
Corrections and responsive evidence
Shariah Council of United States of America may submit responsive documentary evidence concerning legal ownership and governance structure, names, qualifications, and assignments of personnel responsible for Islamic rulings and audits, detailed certification standards or scheme documents, current exact-entity accreditation or recognition evidence relevant to a scored control, and documented impartiality controls and complaint procedures through the [secure documentary-evidence form](/submit-evidence?article=shariah-council-of-united-states-of-america-accountability-assessment). Material evidence will be evaluated under the same methodology.
A submission should identify the exact organization, statement, metric, source, effective dates, scope, responsible people, and requested correction. Publication is not conditional on a response, and no organization has a veto over a documented finding.
This assessment explains public evidence and organizational accountability. It does not replace the controlling HIPS standard, an accreditation or certification decision, a religious ruling, or legal advice.
Frequently asked questions
Why does Shariah Council of United States of America receive 26%, Grade F?
Methodology 2.4 gives 64 percent of the score to accountable leadership, qualified personnel, Islamic authority, and halal-specific audit capability. The organization lacks verifiable evidence of formal halal accreditation, ownership, and accountable personnel, resulting in a low score.
Is Shariah Council of United States of America currently accredited?
The organization does not present and the assessment did not locate current evidence of halal accreditation or recognition from Tier A governmental or recognized independent accreditation authorities.
Does a low score mean every certificate is invalid?
No. This assessment measures structural accountability, transparency, and verifiable credentials, not the religious validity of specific products.
Why are private documents not included?
The methodology relies on public records and publicly verifiable evidence, while allowing the organization to submit responsive controlled documents through the secure documentary-evidence form.
How can the certifier improve its score?
Scores can be improved by providing verifiable evidence of legal ownership, governance structure, personnel qualifications, detailed certification standards, current accreditation, and documented impartiality controls.