U.S. Halal Consultants Comprehensive Accountability Assessment: 8% Credibility Score, Grade F

Entity identity and public record

When people buy halal-certified products, they depend on the certifier’s accountability structure and openness. Without independently verifiable oversight, the integrity of a halal claim depends entirely on the certification body’s own internal processes. This assessment reviews U.S. Halal Consultants using public, verifiable evidence about its operational controls, credentials, and public transparency. [7] [8]

U.S. Halal Consultants operates as a halal certification body. This report examines the organization through eleven standard measures, using what can be independently verified from public records and publicly available certificate information. [4]

Virginia’s current registry lists Arabesque Media LLC as active and formed on April 8, 2013. It lists U.S. Halal Consultants as that LLC’s fictitious name beginning April 7, 2025. New York’s official certifier compilation lists “US Halal Consultants - subsidiary of Arabesque Media,” filed March 4, 2025. Together, these records provide a defensible legal link for the current organization. [1] [3]

The UAlbany certificates, however, were issued on January 20, 2025, before either filing. Arabesque Media LLC already existed, but the official records reviewed do not show that the USHC name had been filed in Virginia or New York at that time. This is treated as a documented timing gap, not as proof of unlawful operation. [1] [3] [6]

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.

Halal Industry Exposé · Comprehensive Accountability Assessment

U.S. Halal Consultants Organizational accountability and public certification-criteria disclosure: 8% Credibility Score · Grade F · Insufficiently substantiated

Moderate confidence. U.S. Halal Consultants receives an 8% Credibility Score (Grade F) in this assessment. The review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization, so the result rests on the reviewed evidence about its controls and operations. Limited public evidence also contributed to the result. The record reviewed does not provide enough verified information about the organization’s practices and public accountability to support reliance on the score alone. This is an evidence-based finding, not proof that an unverified control does not exist, that wrongdoing occurred, or that any particular certificate is invalid.

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 8.2180 out of 100, ordinarily displayed as 8%.

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. 4 checks were fully supported, 1 check had partial support, and 3 checks remained unverified.

   57.26% 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.

   2.8632 of 5 weighted points. partially verified.

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

   Competence contribution

   2.7132 of 4.5000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.1500 of 0.3000 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Legal identity and standing earns 2.9375 of 5 points. Of 8 enumerated subrequirements, 4 fulfilled, 1 partial, 3 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 57.26 percent: 8 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 2.7132 competence + 0.1500 public accountability = 2.8632 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 1.C1 — fulfilled: The certificate issuer is a resolvable legal entity.

      Evidence route: Public source. Virginia records connect USHC to Arabesque Media LLC, and New York has a certifier filing.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   2. Requirement 1.C2 — fulfilled: The entity is active or otherwise legally authorized to operate.

      Evidence route: Public source. Virginia's current registry identifies Arabesque Media LLC as active.

      Public sources: Source 1

   3. Requirement 1.C3 — fulfilled: Every public operating name, DBA, division, or brand used for certification is connected to the issuer.

      Evidence route: Public source. The registry identifies U.S. Halal Consultants as a fictitious name of that LLC, and New York identifies it as a subsidiary of Arabesque Media.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

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

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 1.O1 — partial: Current certificates, contracts, or accreditation identify the same accountable issuer.

      Evidence route: Public source. Certificates and regulatory filings corroborate certification activity, though January 2025 certificates predate verified filings.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

   2. Requirement 1.O2 — not verified: The operating location and jurisdiction correspond to the entity or a documented branch.

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

      Evidence route: Public source. The operating name and filings are publicly accessible.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

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

      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.

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

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

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

      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.

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

      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.

   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. 2 checks were fully supported, and 8 checks remained unverified.

   15.71% 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.

   2.1988 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

   1.7788 of 12.6000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.4200 of 0.8400 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Accountable leadership and governance earns 2.7300 of 14 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 2 fulfilled, 8 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 15.71 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 1.7788 competence + 0.4200 public accountability = 2.1988 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 3.C1 — fulfilled: Senior leadership is identified.

      Evidence route: Public source. Marwan Ahmad is repeatedly identified as leader, founder, signatory, and contact.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

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

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

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

      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.

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

      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.

   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 — fulfilled: Responsible leadership and principal governance roles are publicly identifiable.

      Evidence route: Public source. Responsible leadership is publicly identifiable, as a named leader accepts visible responsibility.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

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

      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.

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. 3 checks had partial support, and 11 checks remained unverified.

   6.54% 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.

   1.1768 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

   0.8168 of 16.2000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.3600 of 1.0800 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Qualified personnel earns 1.6714 of 18 points. Of 14 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 3 partial, 11 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 6.54 percent: 14 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 0.8168 competence + 0.3600 public accountability = 1.1768 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: 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.C2 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for Islamic-affairs experts.

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

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

   5. Requirement 4.C5 — partial: Training, education, experience, and sector competence are defined.

      Evidence route: Public source. Some listed consultants have qualifications, but their separate credentials do not transfer without documented appointment.

      Public sources: Source 1

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

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

      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.

   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 — partial: Responsible personnel roles are publicly identifiable.

      Evidence route: Public source. Public records identify Marwan Ahmad principally through leadership and marketing roles, making responsible personnel roles partially identifiable.

      Public sources: Source 1

   2. Requirement 4.P2 — partial: A reasonable public qualification basis is available for principal technical and Islamic authorities.

      Evidence route: Public source. Some listed consultants have qualifications, but their separate credentials do not transfer without documented appointment, providing a partial qualification basis.

      Public sources: Source 1

   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.

   5.29% 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.

   0.9529 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

   0.9529 of 16.2000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.0000 of 1.0800 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Islamic authority and halal decision rights earns 0.9000 of 18 points. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 1 partial, 10 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 5.29 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 0.9529 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.9529 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 5.C1 — partial: Qualified Muslim Islamic-affairs experts are appointed.

      Evidence route: Public source. A qualified Islamic consultant appears on the roster, though no appointment links them to certificates.

      Public sources: Source 1

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

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

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

      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.

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

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

      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.

   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 — not verified: The principal Islamic authority or committee is 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 5.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who has final halal-decision 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.

   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. 1 check had partial support, and 14 checks remained unverified.

   3.18% 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.

   0.4447 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

   0.4447 of 12.6000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.0000 of 0.8400 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Halal-specific audit and certification controls earns 0.4200 of 14 points. Of 15 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 1 partial, 14 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 3.18 percent: 15 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 0.4447 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.4447 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: 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.C2 — not verified: The audit program and audit time are determined by scope, risk, complexity, sites, and prior results.

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

      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 6.C4 — partial: Audit teams perform halal-specific document and facility review.

      Evidence route: Public source. USHC describes a relevant facility-review scope covering sources, certificates, ingredients, etc., but marketing descriptions do not prove file-level implementation.

      Public sources: Source 1

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

      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.

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

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

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

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

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

       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.

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

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

      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.

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. None of the 11 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.

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

   View the detailed evidence and calculation

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

   0.0000 of 6 weighted points. not publicly verified.

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

   Competence contribution

   0.0000 of 5.4000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.0000 of 0.3600 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Impartiality, conflicts, and independence earns 0.0000 of 6 points. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 11 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

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

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

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

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

      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.C3 — not verified: Consulting and certification conflicts are prohibited or 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.

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

      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.

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

      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.

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

      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.

   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 — not verified: The impartiality commitment and complaint route are publicly accessible.

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

      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.

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. 1 check had partial support, and 9 checks remained unverified.

   6.62% 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.

   0.1985 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

   0.1985 of 2.7000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.0000 of 0.1800 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Standards, scheme, and certification scope earns 0.1875 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 1 partial, 9 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 6.62 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 0.1985 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.1985 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: 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.C2 — not verified: Accredited or claimed categories, activities, products, sites, and locations are defined.

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

      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 8.C4 — not verified: Supplementary destination-market schemes 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.

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

      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.

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

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 8.O1 — partial: Certificates and audits use the correct current standard and scope.

      Evidence route: Public source. Certificates list basic scopes but no governing standard.

      Public sources: Source 1

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

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

      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.

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. None of the 20 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

   20 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: Public certification criteria and position disclosure earns 0.0000 of 8 points. Of 20 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 20 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 20 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 9.C1 — not verified: The public disclosure is authorized, versioned, dated, and 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.

   2. Requirement 9.C2 — not verified: It identifies the governing Islamic and technical 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 9.C3 — not verified: It addresses every applicable Form 1002-D field or marks it not applicable.

      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.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

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

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

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

      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 9.P1 — not verified: Religious or jurisprudential basis.

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

      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 9.P3 — not verified: Mechanical poultry slaughter.

      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 9.P4 — not verified: Mechanical-line tasmiyah.

      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.

   5. Requirement 9.P5 — not verified: Slaughter-person requirements and supervision.

      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.

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

      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.

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

   8. Requirement 9.P8 — not verified: Minimum vessel requirement.

      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.

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

      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.

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

       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.

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

       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.

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

       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.

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

       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.

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

       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.

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. 1 check had partial support, and 9 checks remained unverified.

    6.35% 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.

    0.1906 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

    0.1906 of 2.7000 points.

    Public-accountability contribution

    0.0000 of 0.1800 points.

    Recorded category conclusion: Certificate traceability and mark control earns 0.1800 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 1 partial, 9 not independently verified.

    Why this metric earned 6.35 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

    Arithmetic: 0.1906 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.1906 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

    A. Control assurance · 60 percent

    1. Requirement 10.C1 — partial: Certificate templates contain required issuer, holder, site, product or activity scope, identifier, issue date, expiry date, and authorization.

       Evidence route: Public source. The certificate contains basic traceability elements (holder, site, scope, dates, inspector), but contains an address error.

       Public sources: Source 1

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

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

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

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

    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 accepted requirement-specific evidence establishes this item. The result is an evidence limitation, not a finding of absence or misconduct.

    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. 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.

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. 1 check had partial support, and 9 checks remained unverified.

    4.41% 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.

    0.0441 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

    0.0441 of 0.9000 points.

    Public-accountability contribution

    0.0000 of 0.0600 points.

    Recorded category conclusion: Complaints, appeals, and corrections earns 0.0417 of 1 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 1 partial, 9 not independently verified.

    Why this metric earned 4.41 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

    Arithmetic: 0.0441 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0441 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: 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.C2 — not verified: Independent committee or reviewer requirements are defined.

       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.C3 — not verified: Islamic-affairs expertise participates where 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.

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

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

    B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

    1. Requirement 11.O1 — partial: The mechanism is implemented and reviewed.

       Evidence route: Authoritative source. A contemporaneous written correction request shows a certificate address error was raised, providing limited operational evidence of a correction mechanism.

       Public sources: Source 1

    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 — not verified: A working public route or contact method exists for complaints and appeals.

       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.P2 — not verified: The submission pathway and responsible organization are clear.

       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.

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 was fully supported, 1 check had partial support, and 7 checks remained unverified.

    7.41% 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.

    0.1482 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

    0.0882 of 1.8000 points.

    Public-accountability contribution

    0.0600 of 0.1200 points.

    Recorded category conclusion: Operating history and demonstrated capacity earns 0.2333 of 2 points. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 1 fulfilled, 1 partial, 7 not independently verified.

    Why this metric earned 7.41 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

    Arithmetic: 0.0882 competence + 0.0600 public accountability = 0.1482 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: 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.C2 — not verified: Audit time, staffing, sites, shifts, categories, and workload are considered.

       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.C3 — not verified: External resources and outsourcing 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.

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

       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.

    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 — partial: Current certificates or clients demonstrate active operations.

       Evidence route: Public source. A current public certificate demonstrates active operations, though the full capacity to conduct halal audits is unverified.

       Public sources: Source 1

    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 — fulfilled: Operating history, current service scope, and accountable contact are publicly identifiable.

       Evidence route: Public source. Historical operating presence, service scope, and accountable contact are publicly identifiable.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

    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 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.

Credibility Score interpretation

• Model B assigns 7.2280 of 90 competence-assurance points, 0.0000 of 4 proportional accreditation-breadth points, and 0.9900 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.

Credentials & Recognition

Accreditation and recognition are forms of independent confirmation of a certifier’s competence. Accreditation is a formal evaluation by a recognized body that confirms a certifier meets international standards. Recognition is a national authority’s acceptance of a certifier’s credentials. [7] [8]

For U.S. Halal Consultants, this review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization. It also could not verify current recognition through the public directories reviewed, 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]

What the evidence covers

This assessment uses public records, published directories, publicly verifiable certificate information, and one limited authenticated correction record that was reviewed confidentially. It excludes private email bodies, personal contact information, recipient identities, unrelated parties, and unverified allegations. The confidential record establishes only that a correction was raised and does not add public-evidence credit. [6]

What is publicly disclosed about certification criteria

This disclosure review asks a different question from accreditation: can an ordinary consumer identify the standard or scheme, its current version, the approving authority, and the material halal positions that govern this body’s certifications? No responsive public criteria were verified; the review found only a generic claim to follow halal or Shariah.

Several remaining questions could not be classified confidently because they were not sufficiently disclosed. No specific public position or criteria were found, and the website mentions restaurant certification and commercial kitchens without a formal definition of scope or exclusions. This is a limit of the public evidence, not proof that the body has no internal rule.

Other remaining questions also could not be classified confidently because they were not sufficiently disclosed. No specific public position or criteria were found. This is a limit of the public evidence, not proof that the body has no internal rule.

The same applies to the other reviewed questions that lacked sufficient disclosure: no specific public position or criteria were found. This is a limit of the public evidence, not proof that the body has no internal rule.

The disclosure measure considers whether a position is understandable to the public, not whether it is the strictest position. A position disclosed within a recognized scholarly range is not penalized simply because another body follows a different view.

What could change the assessment

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

Records can be public or submitted privately through the secure evidence pathway. Private records can support evidence about controls or operations when they can be authenticated, but they do not add 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 U.S. Halal Consultants that shows 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 U.S. Halal Consultants that identifies 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 U.S. Halal Consultants governing-body roster and organogram that identifies accountable leaders, their roles, the basis for their appointment or authority, management responsibilities, and entity-level accountability for certification decisions.
• Personnel competence and authorization (Metric 4): a current U.S. Halal Consultants personnel roster or independently assessed controlled record that identifies 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 U.S. Halal Consultants records identifying the Islamic-affairs experts or decision body, their qualifications and appointments, 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 U.S. Halal Consultants 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 U.S. Halal Consultants impartiality and decision-separation policy, plus implementation records, identifying conflict review, separation from consultancy, oversight membership, and separation among audit, technical review, Islamic review, and certification decision-making.
• Standards, scheme, and certification scope (Metric 8): a current U.S. Halal Consultants standard or scheme record stating the 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 U.S. Halal Consultants declaration or equivalent methodology covering the governing standard and version, religious basis, scope and exclusions, practical halal positions, supplementary-scheme precedence, certificate communication, and a public verification route.
• Certificate traceability and mark control (Metric 10): a current public U.S. Halal Consultants 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 on mark use and misuse.
• Complaints, appeals, and corrections (Metric 11): a current public U.S. Halal Consultants procedure for complaints, appeals, and corrections that identifies 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 U.S. Halal Consultants operating records showing its timeline, active clients or certificates, sectors and locations served, workload, surveillance activity, and competent personnel capacity matched to that workload.

How to seek corrections, appeal, or claim this listing

U.S. Halal Consultants or another affected party can submit responsive records through the secure documentary-evidence form. Material evidence is evaluated under the same methodology whether it would raise or lower the Credibility Score.

An authorized representative can also use Claim this certification body. The claimant 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 review; 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, measure, source, effective dates, scope, responsible people, and requested correction. Publication does not depend on a response, and no organization has a private veto over a documented finding.

Frequently asked questions

Does a low score mean certified products are not halal?

No. This assessment looks at structural accountability, transparency, and verifiable credentials; it does not decide the religious validity of particular products.

Why are private documents not included?

Personal and unrelated private material is withheld. When authenticated confidential evidence is necessary and lawfully available, it can support a limited finding about a control or operation, but it cannot create public-evidence credit and the article must state that limitation.

What is the difference between accreditation and recognition?

Accreditation is a technical evaluation of competence by an accreditation body. Recognition is a national religious or governmental authority’s acceptance of a certifier’s status.

How can the certifier improve its score?

The score can improve if the certifier publishes operational protocols, obtains qualifying current independent accreditation for the organization, and provides more public information about governance, audits, and certified products.

How often is this assessment updated?

U.S. Halal Consultants may submit qualifying evidence or a correction request through the secure documentary-evidence form. An authorized representative may also claim the body after authority verification. Neither type of submission automatically changes the Credibility Score, Grade, article, or ranking.

References

1. Virginia State Corporation Commission, Arabesque Media LLC
2. New York Department of Agriculture and Markets, Halal Establishment Registrations
3. New York Department of Agriculture and Markets, Halal Certifier Registrations
4. U.S. Halal Consultants, public services and consultant roster
5. U.S. Halal Consultants, restaurant and commercial-kitchen certification scope
6. Public Spice Market certificate issued by U.S. Halal Consultants
7. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, Indonesia accredits five U.S. halal certifying bodies
8. JAKIM, recognized foreign halal certification bodies and authorities, August 21, 2026
9. American Halal Council, organizational programs and verification role

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