The Muḥadith, al-ʿAllāmah ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Yaḥya al-Muʿallimī (d. 1386 AH) said:

When an error of a scholar or righteous individual reaches the people of knowledge and they fear that the people may be misled by that person’s prestige, they may sometimes belittle his nobility and cast doubt upon his reputation despite their love for him and recognition of his status. However, they present him in a belittling manner so that people are not put to trial by him.

An example of this is what you see in the introduction to Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, where there is severe belittlement of al-Bukhārī while refuting his condition of verifying a narrator’s meeting with the one above him. It may give the reader a certain impression, even though al-Bukhārī’s status in the heart of Muslim is high, and his love and respect for him is well known in history and in (the science of) the names of men (ʾasmāʾ al-rijāl). Similarly, much of the criticism by the scholars of ḥadīth on Abū Ḥanīfah — may Allāh have mercy on him — may also fall into this category.

Perhaps what led them to this (approach) is their knowledge that the general public — and those similar to them — may be overly impressed by a person’s virtue. So if the scholars say, ‘He made a mistake despite his greatness and virtue’, the people may respond, ‘You have acknowledged his greatness and virtue, so his opinion is stronger to us than yours’.

In short, whoever understands the legislative principle of weighing harms will not blame the scholars for undermining those whose influence they fear may mislead the people. If those who love the criticised individual(s) understood this meaning, they would not fall into vilification of those great scholars out of zeal and partisanship, and Allāh is the One whose help is sought.