From an Islamic jurisprudence and legal perspective, criminal liability hinges on the concept of attribution. When attribution is established, criminal liability arises; conversely, when it is absent, so too is criminal liability. The question then arises: what is the criterion for attribution? By what standard can a crime be attributed to a perpetrator? This paper examines the role of custom as a criterion for attributing crimes, from both a jurisprudential and legal standpoint, using a descriptive-analytical approach centered on textual analysis. Based on jurisprudential and legal principles, as well as scriptural evidence (Quran and Sunnah), it can be argued that customary and rational consensus is the most suitable criterion for attributing crimes. When there is a single perpetrator, establishing attribution is relatively straightforward. However, when there are multiple perpetrators, such as direct and indirect accomplices or multiple causes, both direct and indirect, and a combination of causes and direct perpetrators, the complexity of the matter has led jurists and legal scholars to rely on scriptural and legal sources to conclude that customary and rational consensus is the best and most appropriate criterion for attributing crimes.

Keywords: Attribution, Custom, Crime, Criminal Liability, Jurisprudence, Law