Some additional thoughts:

I agree. I also question the authenticity of Fiqh Akbar/Absat for this and other reasons. However, we have another authentic text from the Hanafis of the time which is in explicit contradiction to the Ahl Hadith creed. This text is Al-Sawad al-A'zam. https://twitter.com/Aal_Moalim/status/1415889810879926273

It is clear from studying the history that the Hanafis and Ahl Hadith were originally two separate religious traditions which began merging into one at some point later on to result in what we have today.

Given that we reject most of the creedal texts attributed to Abu Hanifa as fabricated, we are left with practically next to nothing that tells us about about the Aqida of Abu Hanifa directly. What we are left with is the contemporary Hanafi texts, which contradict Ahl Hadith.

As a result, it is a massive leap to assume Abu Hanifa and the early Hanafis from the salaf were majority "Athari" (as some Salafi Hanafis and others do today).

Additionally, we know for a fact that the connection of the Hanafis to the Mu'tazilah cannot be denied. Virtually all of the Mu'tazilah from Bagdad, Kufa, Basra and the surrounding area were Hanafi in fiqh.

It makes one wonder, did the mu'tazilites really have their own completely and totally innovated aqida or was it influenced, at least in part, by that of Abu Hanifa and the non-mu'tazili Hanafites?

Based on this and the beliefs present in Sawad al-A'zam, which everyone studying this topic should read about, I would not be surprised if Abu Hanifa the real man believed the Arabic Quran to be created (This is just my guess due to all the supporting info, nothing concrete).

Some more info on this text Sawad al-A'zam:

-This text is incredibly important in the history of the early Hanafi-"Maturidi" school and was written mainly to express the beliefs of the majority of Hanafis in the Transoxiana region and counter Mu’tazili heresy

-The book also discusses other deviant sects including the Murji’a, Jabariyya, Khawarij, Qadariyya and Karamiyya. This is important because it shows that the Hanafis, although separate from Ahl Hadith, recognized these sects and regarded them as deviant and/or heretical

-The text was widely translated and circulated among the Hanafis of the region, and since the translation was anonymous, it shows that the beliefs in this book were representative of a large population, not just a few people.

-This text is undoubtedly written by people from the salaf as it was written by a delegation and the last person to add to it was Hakim al-Samarqandi [d. 956 AH]. We even have copies of the manuscript attributed to Abu Hafs al-Kabir, a student of İmam Shaybani himself.

Moving back to the issue of Khurooj and why al-Tahawi seems to go against what is famously reported from Abu Hanifa regarding rebellion (by both his admirers and opponents) on top of the well-known fact that Abu Hanifa -

- supported the rebellion of Zaid bin Ali through Faatawa and even money. I have a theory regarding this.

Al-Tahawi was known to be someone who studied with both the Ahnaf and Ahl Hadith, meaning he was not someone who was particularly sectarian. He attempted to reconcile many of the views between Ahl-Hadith and the Hanafis wherever possible and assimilate them when he could.

Reading his words he says “this is the way of the jurists of the religion of Abu Hanifa, Al Shaybani, and Abu Yusuf.” Al-Tahawi does not address the opinion and actions of Abu Hanifa specifically nor does he deny what is very strongly attributed to Abu Hanifa regarding rebellion.

A madhab is built on Usul and not rulings. It is not uncommon for the founding Imam to hold one opinion while the madhab adopts another one, and thus this would explain why Al-Tahawi and many other Hanafis adopted the opinion that Rebellion is impermissible.

In all honesty, it seems to me that Al-Tahawi is attempting to appease Ahl Hadith by following their opinion on this issue. It is important to note that the Hanafi school did not completely do away with the opinion of Rebellion being impermissible though.

As recently as the 17th century, Al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya from the Hanafis of the subcontinent states rebellion being permissible against unjust rulers. This is mentioned in other Hanafi texts by other jurists as well.

To conclude here are some important threads which go into further detail regarding the early Hanafi school and its creed:

1) https://twitter.com/IbnMosharraf/status/1364517200636219392?s=20

2) https://twitter.com/KerrDepression/status/1364686901744201728?s=20

3) https://twitter.com/IbneKhan01/status/1397538905260531717?s=20

4) https://twitter.com/Abdarrahman1453/status/1397810932601008134?s=20