Bismillah, in the net came across with shia doubt against Abu Haneefa, rahimahullah. First of all praise to Allah, that these idiots from rawafid at last didn’t differ between sunni and salafis. Seems to me they start realizing that sunni and salafi two different names of one saved sect.

Anyway, here their doubt:

بسم الله

أخبرنا محمد بن القاسم بن حاتم قال : حدثنا محمد بن داود السمنانى قال : حدثنا ابن المصفى قال : حدثنا سويد بن عبد العزيز قال : جاء رجل إلى أبى حنيفة فقال : ما تقول فيمن أكل لحم الخنزير ؟ فقال : لا شئ عليه

Suwaid bin Abdul Aziz said: One man come to Abu Hanifa and asked: ‘What do you say about one who eats Pork?’ – ‘It’s all right’ answered Abu Hanifa.
______________________
Sunni – Salafi References:
Source: al-Machruhin by Muhammad bin Hibban, Volume 3, page 73,

We answer:

1) Chain of this report is weak. Suwayd ibn Abdulaziz was weak, as said Nasai in Duafa, ibn Hajar in Talkhis al-Khabir (11/210),  imam Ahmad as it was reported by Bukhari in Duafa as-Saghir,  and others

2) Translation is wrong and incorrect. Because imam didn’t answer “it is alright”, as shia claim. He said: “There is nothing upon him”, and it is very obvious from the text that he mean no punishment upon him in this world (like for robbery, zina and etc).

3) We asking shia to bring single sound evidence from their sources, that they aimma prescribed any punishment upon the one who eat pork.

4) If they can’t do this, they should agree with imam Abu Haneefa, that there is nothing upon such person.