Is it obligatory for one who reads a hadith from "Sahih al-Jami'" to refer to the source to which you referred?

The questioner: Regarding the hadiths in "Sahih al-Jami'" that you generally attribute to one of your books in which you have traced the hadith.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner: Such as "al-Silsilah al-Sahihah" and "al-Arwah" and the like. So if a student of knowledge wants to act upon a hadith from these hadiths in al-Jami'... "Sahih al-Jami'"; is he obligated to refer to the book from which the hadith was extracted, or is it sufficient for him to rely on the authentic one?

The Shaykh: This varies depending on this student. This example can be illustrated or developed in another way: Is it obligatory for every Muslim to know the difference between an authentic hadith and a weak one, or not? There is no doubt that the answer will be: It is obligatory for him to know the difference between the authentic and the weak. In that case... the second question - which is the crux of the matter - is: Is it obligatory for this questioner to refer to the means of knowing whether this statement - i.e., the hadith being authentic or weak - requires tracing the original sources and the paths by which a Muslim is usually able to know an authentic hadith, or is it not obligatory? The answer is very self-evident: If he is among the people of this knowledge and this discipline, it is obligatory; otherwise, it is not. The answer in this and that - also - is like many jurisprudential issues. Our Lord - Mighty and Majestic - says in the Noble Qur'an: , so the verse divides people into two categories: the knowledgeable and the ignorant, and He made something obligatory for each of them that He did not make obligatory for the other. He made it obligatory for the one who is not a scholar to ask the people of knowledge, and He made it obligatory for the scholars to answer. The questioners in every era, even in the era of Prophethood and the Message, are mostly unable to know the authenticity of the answer they received from the scholar; perhaps he took it from the Book of Allah, or from the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), or from scholarly consensus? And then perhaps this consensus is from the first category in which the Ummah does not differ; that is what the Ummah has agreed upon as authentic, or from the second category, which is the consensus of the scholars, the scholars of the Ummah, and it is not required that the entire Ummah agrees, and so on, regarding the definitions of the consensus by which the argument is established?
There is no doubt that most people cannot reach these details. These people are satisfied with the scholar's answer: it is permissible, it is not permissible, it is obligatory, it is a recommended practice, and so on.
Likewise, this type of person is satisfied with the statement of a scholar whose knowledge is trusted: this is authentic, this is good, this is weak. But it may be possible that this questioner or that reader in "Sahih al-Jami'" that this hadith is authentic; he may be able to refer to the source to which I referred, or he may not be able to. If he is unable to refer to the source, he may be able to refer to the paths that I followed - for example - in reaching the ruling on this hadith as authentic. If he is able to do so, he is not in need of referring at that time to a source that is beyond his reach, especially since the reality is that some of the sources to which I attribute the authentication or weakening are still in the realm of manuscripts, and have not yet been printed for us.
The Shaykh : This is the answer to what you asked.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : And beware of that.