Entity identity and public record
When consumers purchase halal-certified products, they rely on the certifier's structural accountability and transparent operations. Without verifiable oversight, the integrity of the halal claim depends entirely on the internal processes of the certification body. This assessment evaluates U.S. Halal Consultants based on public, verifiable evidence of its operational controls, accreditation credentials, and public transparency. [7] [8]
U.S. Halal Consultants operates as a halal certification body. This report measures the structural accountability of the organization against eleven standardized metrics, evaluating what can be independently verified through public records and publicly hosted certificate facts. [4]
Virginia’s current registry identifies Arabesque Media LLC as active, formed April 8, 2013. The registry identifies U.S. Halal Consultants as a fictitious name of that LLC beginning April 7, 2025. New York’s official certifier compilation identifies “US Halal Consultants - subsidiary of Arabesque Media,” filed March 4, 2025. This creates a defensible legal bridge for the current organization. [1] [3]
However, the UAlbany certificates were issued January 20, 2025, before either filing. Arabesque Media LLC existed at that time, but the reviewed official record does not show that the USHC name had then been filed in Virginia or New York. This report treats that as a documented timing gap rather than proof of unlawful operation. [1] [3] [6]
Halal Industry Exposé · Comprehensive Accountability Assessment
U.S. Halal Consultants Organizational accountability: 36% · Grade F · Insufficiently substantiated
Moderate confidence. U.S. Halal Consultants (USHC) operates as a fictitious name of Arabesque Media LLC. Current public records establish its legal identity, and an active leader accepts visible responsibility. However, the organization lacks verified exact-entity accreditation, its halal audit methodology is not fully disclosed, and Islamic decision authority remains untraceable in the public record. While the organization provides basic certificate traceability, no public verification system or formal complaints procedure was found.
This comprehensive organizational accountability assessment combines the standardized score with documented public records and a limited authenticated correction record reviewed confidentially. 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 USHC certificate is invalid, prove that no halal work occurred, or declare bad intent. Personal identities, recipient lists, and unrelated private correspondence are withheld.
Halal Certification Body Accountability Assessment version 2.4. Source cutoff September 12, 2026. Last reviewed September 13, 2026. Raw score 36.3850 out of 100, ordinarily rounded to 36%.
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
Current legal identity is traceable.
Virginia records now connect USHC to Arabesque Media LLC, while New York has a certifier filing. This does not retroactively resolve the January 2025 timing gap or establish competence.
Metrics: #1, #2
Score treatment: Supports operational-evidence credit in legal and operating status.
Boundary: The records establish legal identity, not the complete audit method or personnel authorization.
A named leader accepted visible responsibility.
Marwan Ahmad signed the certificates, and the institution reported that he conducted an on-site review. The evidence does not establish his auditor authorization, findings, reviewer, or Islamic decision role.
Metrics: #3, #6, #9
Score treatment: Supports limited operational and public credit for an attributable role in governance.
Boundary: A printed name and title do not establish biography, qualifications, or final decision authority.
USHC describes a relevant facility-review scope.
Its public page covers sources, certificates, ingredients, menus, storage, equipment, handling, sanitation, and service. Marketing descriptions do not prove file-level implementation.
Metrics: #6, #8
Score treatment: Supports partial operational credit for halal-specific assessment activity.
Boundary: The descriptions do not identify the auditor, visit, report, or Islamic reviewer.
Sources: [5]
The organization has access to publicly verifiable subject-matter expertise.
Some listed consultants have independently verifiable halal-certification or Islamic qualifications. Their separate credentials do not transfer without a documented USHC appointment and assignment.
Metrics: #4, #5
Score treatment: Supports partial control credit for access to expertise.
Boundary: The credentials do not transfer without a documented appointment.
Sources: [4]
The certificate contains basic traceability elements.
It identifies a holder, site, scope, certificate number, issue and expiry dates, inspector, and change-reporting expectation. It lacks a current public status system and contains an address error.
Metrics: #9
Score treatment: Supports partial operational credit for certificate traceability.
Boundary: Individual certificates do not provide a complete current directory or suspension history.
Sources: [6]
Red flags
The “recognized body” statement is not tied to a verifiable authority.
No recognizing body, accreditation standard, current scope, dates, or surveillance was identified. This is an unsupported recognition claim, not proof that every certificate is invalid.
Metrics: #8, #9
Score treatment: Leaves standards-and-scheme control and public-evidence credit at low levels.
Boundary: Missing accreditation is not proof that no internal standard exists. It means the required recognition has not been verified.
The January 2025 certificates predate verified filings.
New York registration followed on March 4, and the Virginia fictitious name followed on April 7. The responsible LLC already existed, so the issue is timing and disclosure, not a finding of fraud or illegality.
Metrics: #1
Score treatment: Limits legal identity credit.
Boundary: The timing gap does not prove unlawful operation.
The actual inspector’s competence and authorization are not substantiated.
Public records identify Marwan Ahmad principally through leadership, marketing, media, and event roles. No halal-auditor training, witnessed competence, sector authorization, or monitoring record was reviewed.
Metrics: #4
Score treatment: Limits responsible-person control, operational, and public-evidence factors.
Boundary: The finding does not declare the inspector unqualified. It means the reviewed record documents the certificate name and title but does not independently establish the person’s qualifications.
Islamic review and final halal decision authority are not traceable.
A qualified Islamic consultant appears on the roster, but no appointment, assignment, review, jurisprudential basis, or final decision record links that person or another expert to the certificate.
Metrics: #5
Score treatment: Supports the low Islamic-authority score.
Boundary: The finding does not infer anyone’s religion. It means the accountable religious authority is not independently established.
Consulting and certification are combined without visible impartiality safeguards.
USHC sells consulting, marketing strategy, referrals, promotional membership, and certification, but publishes no conflict, separation, reviewer-independence, or impartiality mechanism. This does not establish actual bias.
Metrics: #7
Score treatment: Leaves impartiality control, operational, and public credit at zero.
Boundary: The lack of visible safeguards does not establish actual bias.
Certificate correction and status controls are weakly evidenced.
The public certificate contains an incorrect ZIP code. A contemporaneous correction request was reviewed confidentially, but no corrected public copy, status history, appeal process, or correction log was found.
Metrics: #9, #10
Score treatment: Limits status control and complaint layers at the limited factors supported by public contacts and sampled certificates.
Boundary: The private record establishes that the issue was raised, not how the recipient handled it. Personal identities and unrelated correspondence are withheld.
Sources: [6]
Accreditation examined
No current accreditor verified · Not verified. Not verified. Not verified. Accredited Not verified; expiry Not verified.
Scope: No current recognized exact-entity accreditation was verified for USHC or Arabesque Media LLC in the reviewed GAC, UAE, or BPJPH-related records. A USDA report identifying the five U.S. bodies recognized by BPJPH in 2024 does not name USHC, nor does the August 21, 2026 JAKIM list. American Halal Council membership is not accreditation.
Third-party independence: No accreditation body was identified for USHC, so accreditor authority and independence cannot be assessed and no accreditation-derived control or operational assurance is applied to the metric scores.
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.
81.00% of this metric; 4.86 of 6 weighted points. verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation-derived credit was available.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 85 percent evidence factor; 3.06 points. Virginia records connect USHC to Arabesque Media LLC, and New York has a certifier filing.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 75 percent evidence factor; 1.13 points. Certificates and regulatory filings corroborate certification activity.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 75 percent evidence factor; 0.68 points. The operating name and filings are publicly accessible.
Metric conclusion: Based on publicly available information, U.S. Halal Consultants scored 81.0% in this metric. Verification relies on public records and publicly hosted data.
2. Ownership and control
Beneficial owners, percentages, controlling persons, governance rights, related parties, and conflicts.
50.00% of this metric; 5.00 of 10 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No current independent accreditation or official ownership record was verified.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 3.00 points. Authoritative and first-party records place Marwan Ahmad in consequential control and responsibility roles.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 1.25 points. The record does not disclose beneficial ownership percentages or all members.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 0.75 points. Visible operating control is recognized while preserving the ownership gap.
Metric conclusion: Based on publicly available information, U.S. Halal Consultants scored 50.0% in this metric. Verification relies on public records and publicly hosted data.
3. Governance and accountable leadership
Named leadership, governing bodies, organizational structure, management responsibility, and accountable contacts.
60.00% of this metric; 8.40 of 14 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No independent accreditation record was available.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 4.20 points. Marwan Ahmad is repeatedly identified as leader, founder, signatory, and contact.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 75 percent evidence factor; 2.63 points. Leadership accepts visible responsibility.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 75 percent evidence factor; 1.57 points. The public record does not show a governing body, organization chart, or certification committee.
Metric conclusion: Based on publicly available information, U.S. Halal Consultants scored 60.0% in this metric. Verification relies on public records and publicly hosted data.
4. Personnel competence and authorization
Auditor, reviewer, technical-expert, and contractor qualifications, training, authorization, monitoring, and assignments.
25.00% of this metric; 4.50 of 18 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No current independent accreditation or competence evaluation was verified.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 2.70 points. Public records identify Marwan Ahmad principally through leadership and marketing roles.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 1.13 points. No halal-auditor training, witnessed competence, or sector authorization record was reviewed.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.68 points. Some listed consultants have qualifications, but their separate credentials do not transfer without documented appointment.
Metric conclusion: Based on publicly available information, U.S. Halal Consultants scored 25.0% in this metric. Verification relies on public records and publicly hosted data.
5. Islamic authority and halal decision
Qualified Islamic-affairs personnel, governing authority, jurisprudential basis, review roles, and final halal decisions.
18.75% of this metric; 3.38 of 18 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation-derived assurance of Islamic governance or decision authority was available.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 2.70 points. A qualified Islamic consultant appears on the roster.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. No appointment, review, jurisprudential basis, or final decision record links that person to the certificates.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.68 points. Islamic review and final halal decision authority are not traceable.
Metric conclusion: Based on publicly available information, U.S. Halal Consultants scored 18.75% in this metric. Verification relies on public records and publicly hosted data.
6. Halal audit method and facility verification
Application, scope review, documents, on-site work, ingredients, processes, findings, corrections, reports, surveillance, and recertification.
50.00% of this metric; 7.00 of 14 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditor-issued standard or scope was verified.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 4.20 points. USHC describes a relevant facility-review scope.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 1.75 points. Marketing descriptions do not prove file-level implementation.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 1.05 points. The complete audit record and procedural timing remain unresolved.
Metric conclusion: Based on publicly available information, U.S. Halal Consultants scored 50.0% in this metric. Verification relies on public records and publicly hosted data.
7. Impartiality and decision separation
Conflict of interest management, independent review, and separation of consulting from certification.
0.00% of this metric; 0.00 of 8 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No independent accreditation record was available.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. USHC sells consulting and certification but publishes no conflict or impartiality mechanism.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. No reviewer-independence mechanism is verified.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. Impartiality safeguards are not visible.
Metric conclusion: Based on publicly available information, U.S. Halal Consultants scored 0.0% in this metric. Verification relies on public records and publicly hosted data.
8. Standards, scheme, and certification scope
Published halal standards, scheme rules, and defined certification scopes.
35.00% of this metric; 1.40 of 4 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No independent accreditation record was available.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.60 points. The 'recognized body' statement is not tied to a verifiable authority.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 0.50 points. Certificates list basic scopes but no governing standard.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 0.30 points. No recognizing body, accreditation standard, or current scope was identified.
Metric conclusion: Based on publicly available information, U.S. Halal Consultants scored 35.0% in this metric. Verification relies on public records and publicly hosted data.
9. Certificate traceability and mark control
Certificate issuance, traceability, and control of the certification mark.
28.75% of this metric; 1.15 of 4 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No independent accreditation record was available.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.60 points. The certificate contains basic traceability elements.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.25 points. It lacks a current public status system and contains an address error.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 0.30 points. No public directory or status history was found.
Metric conclusion: Based on publicly available information, U.S. Halal Consultants scored 28.75% in this metric. Verification relies on public records and publicly hosted data.
10. Complaints, appeals, and corrections
Published procedures for handling complaints, appeals, and corrections.
6.25% of this metric; 0.13 of 2 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No independent accreditation record was available.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. No formal complaints or appeals procedure was found.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.13 points. A contemporaneous written correction request reviewed by USDHS shows that the certificate address error was raised. Personal identities and unrelated correspondence are withheld.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. No corrected version or correction log was found.
Metric conclusion: The reviewed record supports 6.25% in this metric. The limited operational credit reflects a documented correction request, while no published procedure or public correction log was found.
11. Operating history and demonstrated capacity
Demonstrated operational capacity and history of certification activity.
28.75% of this metric; 0.57 of 2 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No independent accreditation record was available.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.30 points. Independent reporting shows that the USHC operating name and leadership presentation existed by 2021.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.13 points. Activity is documented, but the capacity to conduct full halal audits is unverified.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 0.15 points. Historical operating presence is visible.
Metric conclusion: Based on publicly available information, U.S. Halal Consultants scored 28.75% in this metric. Verification relies on public records and publicly hosted data.
Part 3
Conclusion
Strongest findings
- Current legal identity is traceable to Arabesque Media LLC.
- A named leader accepts visible responsibility.
- USHC describes a relevant facility-review scope.
- The organization has access to publicly verifiable subject-matter expertise.
- The certificate contains basic traceability elements.
Material gaps
- The 'recognized body' statement is not tied to a verifiable authority.
- The actual inspector's competence and authorization are not substantiated.
- Islamic review and final halal decision authority are not traceable.
- Consulting and certification are combined without visible impartiality safeguards.
- Certificate correction and status controls are weakly evidenced.
Unresolved questions
- Who performs the independent halal audit and religious review?
- What are the qualifications of the auditors and decision-makers?
- How does USHC ensure impartiality between its consulting and certification services?
- Where can consumers verify current certificate status and corrections?
Score interpretation
- The four responsible-person metrics earned 23.2750 of 64 points, or 36.37%.
- The green and red flags summarize evidence already reflected in the eleven metric factors. They do not add or subtract separate points and the same fact is not deducted twice.
Material records are rescored under the same rules, whether they raise or lower the result. Submit documentary evidence through the secure evidence and correction form.
Credentials & Recognition
Accreditation and recognition provide independent verification of a certifier's competence. Accreditation is a formal evaluation by a recognized body confirming that a certifier meets international standards. Recognition is the acceptance of a certifier's credentials by a national authority. [7] [8]
For U.S. Halal Consultants, no current recognized exact-entity accreditation or recognition could be verified through public directories (including the August 21, 2026 JAKIM recognition list and the 2024 USDA report). The certificate’s statement that USHC is “a recognized body for halal certification” therefore remains unsupported by an identified recognizing authority, standard, scope, effective period, or surveillance system. [7] [8]
Evidence Boundaries
This assessment relies on public records, published directories, publicly verifiable certificate facts, and one limited authenticated correction record reviewed confidentially. Private email bodies, personal contact data, recipient identities, unrelated parties, and unverified allegations are excluded. The confidential record supports only the fact that a correction was raised and creates no public-evidence credit. [6]
Corrections and responsive evidence
U.S. Halal Consultants may submit responsive records through the [secure documentary-evidence form](/submit-evidence?subject=U.S.%20Halal%20Consultants&article=https%3A%2F%2Fhalalstandards.org%2Finsights%2Fus-halal-consultants-accountability-assessment). USDHS evaluates material evidence under the same methodology whether it raises or lowers a score. [6]
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. [6]
This assessment explains public evidence and organizational accountability. It does not replace the controlling HIPS standard, an accreditation or certification decision, a religious ruling, or legal advice.
Frequently asked questions
Does a low score mean the certified products are not halal?
No. This assessment measures structural accountability, transparency, and verifiable credentials, not the religious validity of specific products.
Why are private documents not included?
Personal and unrelated private material is withheld. When authenticated confidential evidence is necessary and lawfully available, it may support a bounded control or operational factor, but it cannot create public-evidence credit and the article must state the limitation.
What is the difference between accreditation and recognition?
Accreditation is a technical evaluation of competence by an accreditation body. Recognition is the acceptance of a certifier's status by a national religious or governmental authority.
How can the certifier improve its score?
Scores can be improved by publishing operational protocols, obtaining recognized exact-entity accreditation, and increasing public transparency regarding governance, audits, and certified products.
How often is this assessment updated?
Assessments are updated when new, verifiable public evidence is submitted or discovered during periodic reviews.
References
- Virginia State Corporation Commission, Arabesque Media LLC
- New York Department of Agriculture and Markets, Halal Establishment Registrations
- New York Department of Agriculture and Markets, Halal Certifier Filings
- U.S. Halal Consultants, public services and consultant roster
- U.S. Halal Consultants, restaurant and commercial-kitchen certification scope
- Public Spice Market certificate issued by U.S. Halal Consultants
- USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, Indonesia accredits five U.S. halal certifying bodies
- JAKIM, recognized foreign halal certification bodies and authorities, August 21, 2026
- American Halal Council, organizational programs and verification role