Main discussion on ḥadīth study is on its authenticity and validity. Ḥadīth criticism is a part from the efforts of maintaining the authenticity and validity of ḥadīth. Ḥadīth criticism is done both on the narrator and the content or text of the tradition. Among so many traditions found nowadays, many of it was narrated by Abū Hurayra. He was known as the prolific narrator, his large number of narration during his companionship with the Prophet that lasts only for three to four years, caused distrustfulness and criticism to appear from both classical and contemporary scholars both on his credibility and his narrations.
Sharaf al-Dīn Al-Mūsawi is a Shi’a figure who criticized Abū Hurayra. He assessed Abū Hurayra as unjust narrator and valuated his traditions as false. Al-Mūsawi used many argumentations in criticizing the content of Abū Hurayra’s traditions from Qur’an verses, prophetic traditions, historical facts, and his rationality. He aimed to show that what was narrated by Abū Hurayra were invalid.
This research aims to find the reasons of Al-Mūsawi in criticizing Abū Hurayra and his traditions, the measuring rods he used in his criticism, and the accuracy of his criticism. This research is done by historical approach for this is a research of a figure who lived in a certain time in the past, and content analysis method, since this research is based on text and it aims to give description about a figure’s thought; the meaning that consists in the critique given by Sharaf al-Dīn al-Mūsawi to the narrations of Abū Hurayra. The critique then will be analyzed by using the standard of ḥadīth textual criticism set by the ḥadīth scholar.
The result of this research found that the reason of Al-Mūsawi in criticizing Abū Hurayra and his tradition mainly caused by his political purpose. The measuring rods used by al-Mūsawi in his criticism are Qur’ān, prophetic tradition, historical fact, and rationality. These measures are the same measure used by the ḥadīth scholars. Yet in applying these measures, al-Mūsawi did it in different way for his prior purpose; to show that Abū Hurayra fabricated the tradition. His criticism can’t be considered as accurate, since he forced the data to accord with his premise.