If the criticism and vindication of a famous imam are equal? And did they equal in the case of Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him)?

The questioner : Regarding the criticism and vindication of a famous imam, where the ... in the criticism and vindication are equal, what is given precedence? ... .

The Shaykh : Here are two issues: the first is if the criticism and vindication are equal, and the second is whether the criticism and vindication were equal in the case of Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him)?
The answer to the first part is that if a criticism conflicts with a vindication, regardless of whether they are equal, there is no difference in what follows between the critics being more numerous or the vindicators being more numerous. The rule is that the criticism is given precedence if its cause is explained; that is, the criticism is given precedence over the vindication, even if it is from one person, over the vindication even if it is from a group, provided the condition is met: that it is an explained and clarified criticism. However, it is not sufficient for the criticism to be explained and clarified; rather, it must be an acceptable criticism, because not every criticism leveled against a narrator is a criticism that removes his integrity. One of the clearest examples of this is criticism based on disagreement in legal school. If it is established that a narrator possesses the conditions of trustworthiness, which are integrity and precision and memorization, and then a critic says, for example, that he was a Murji'i, or a Khariji, or something similar to the known disagreement with the people of the Sunnah, this is a criticism; but it is not a criticism that removes the reliance on the narration of this narrator, even though he is criticized in his legal school. Because the science of hadith—as al-Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Hajar, and others say—is based on integrity and memorization. As for the legal school, it has a relation to salvation on the Day of Resurrection, or to destruction—may Allah forbid—and that is a matter left to Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He).
As long as this narrator remains within the circle of Islam and is just—that is, not an open sinner—and is precise and a good memorizer—that is, not one with poor memorization—then his criticism for disagreeing with the correct legal school does not harm him. This is one example, and there are many examples of types of criticism that are not considered a denunciation of the narrator that removes the reliance on his hadith. This is the case, for example, if he has an opinion that disagrees with the correct opinion in some jurisprudential issues; such as if he is, for example, one of those who consider entertainment or singing and music permissible. This was an old legal school known among the people of the Hijaz, who used to be lenient in listening to musical instruments, even though the stronger position among the majority of scholars is that all musical instruments are prohibited by well-known hadiths. Some hadith scholars have compiled treatises on this, among them Abu Bakr ibn Abi al-Dunya, who has a treatise titled "The Blame of Entertainment." Similarly, Imam Abu Bakr al-Ajri also has a "Treatise on the Prohibition of Chess and Entertainment." This treatise is printed, but there was ... a convincing argument for him to prohibit musical instruments, so he remained on the original position, which is that he is a trustworthy, memorizing, just, and truthful narrator. If the conditions of a trustworthy narrator are present in him, he is not criticized for engaging in such entertainment, whether by listening or by doing. And so on. The condition for giving precedence to the criticism over the vindication is that it must first be an explained criticism, and second, that this criticism is a genuine criticism and not a rejected criticism due to one of those causes that are summarized by disagreement in the legal school; whether this disagreement is in creed or in some jurisprudential rulings.
And I said just now, to be understood well, as long as this narrator, by his disagreement, whether it is in creed or in some rulings, remains within the circle of Muslims. But if he exits the circle of Islam, then the integrity, which is the first condition for accepting the narration of a narrator, is negated. This is the first part of the speech that came in the question, when he gave the exampleThe questioner : of Abu Hanifah; where he mentioned that the criticism and vindication, or the critics and vindicators, are balanced. But the reality—unfortunately—regarding Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him) is that those who vouched for his trustworthiness are few, to the point that they are not mentioned in comparison to those who weakened him, both ancient and modern, from the early or late scholars. There is no one among the famous imams who is reported to have vouched for the trustworthiness of Abu Hanifah except Yahya ibn Ma'in (may Allah have mercy on him), and he has two reports regarding him: one is his vouching for his trustworthiness, and the other is his weakening of him. In this case, the statement that agrees with the majority of scholars who weakened Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him) is taken from his two statements, especially since those who weakened him have an explained criticism on their side, which is a criticism that removes the reliance on his hadith. This is because they described his hadith as confused, and that he elevates some hadiths or attributes them to the Prophet while they are mursal (missing the Companion link).
One of the examples of his error in describing some hadiths is that he narrated with his chain from a famous Tabi'i, Ibn al-Had, and this is from Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . Abu Hanifah narrated this hadith from Ibn al-Had from Jabir, elevated to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). And he was contradicted by one who is known as a mountain in memorization, precision, and mastery, namely Sufyan ibn Sa'id al-Thawri, who narrated it from Ibn al-Had as mursal, saying: The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said. So Sufyan and Abu Hanifah differed here in the method of narrating this hadith. Abu Hanifah attributed it to Ibn al-Had from Jabir, and Sufyan made it mursal from Ibn al-Had to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), not mentioning Jabir between Ibn al-Had and the Messenger. So Imam al-Daraqutni said in his "Sunan": This chain that Abu Hanifah narrated is weak due to the weakness of Abu Hanifah, meaning: ... in his memorization. Therefore, here, specifically regarding the example of Abu Hanifah, there is consideration in the fact that those who criticized him are many, and those who vouched for his trustworthiness are few; even though the vouching is contradicted by an explained criticism with its cause stated.
This is the answer to that question.