What is the ruling on classifying the authentic hadiths in the four Sunan in one book and the weak ones in another?

The questioner : ...that the authentic hadith be separated in one book, and the weak one in another book. If he were to combine them in one book and place the commentary on it in ...; what is your opinion?

The Shaykh : We have heard this on various occasions, but in truth, it has no validity. Also, these are books, not the Book of Allah (Mighty and Majestic); rather, they are books compiled by scholars. What prevents some people from taking one of these books, separating the authentic hadiths and placing them in one book, and the weak hadiths and placing them in another? Indeed, what prevents one from collecting the hadiths related to a specific topic—as we mentioned earlier—such as morals and conduct, and placing them in a book? This ... suits people. What harm is there in this? As long as his transmission is a transmission that matches what is in the book; is it not from what we received from the scholars of hadith that they have different approaches in authorship? The best of them—indeed, the best of them after the Noble Qur'an—is "Sahih al-Imam al-Bukhari" and "Sahih al-Imam Muslim," followed by the other authentic collections, such as "Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah" and "Sahih Ibn Hibban" and others. So what prevents a person from coming to the four Sunan, distinguishing the authentic from the weak, and placing the authentic in a book following its authenticity? Since they separated the authentic hadiths from the weak ones. It was mentioned in the biography of Imam al-Bukhari that he memorized six hundred thousand hadiths: four hundred thousand that were not authentic, and two hundred thousand that were authentic. Then he selected from the two hundred thousand approximately four thousand and placed them in his book known as "Sahih al-Bukhari." So what prevents one of us in this era from coming to a book of the four Sunan and making each book two sections: the first section containing what is authentic from it, and the second section containing what is weak from it? What error is there in this? And what is the meaning of ...—I forgot the phrase I said!—... ... whenever you take a hadith and put a section in the east and a section in the west. Rather, you transmit authentic hadiths and place them in a book, and the weak ones you place in another book. In reality, I see that this is an obligatory duty of authorship in the present era.
As is not hidden from every rational person, the science of hadith is an ocean with no shore. If you heard now that al-Bukhari memorized six hundred thousand hadiths, if we published the six hundred thousand hadiths, including the authentic, the good, the weak, and the fabricated; would that be better for people? Or if we separated the authentic from the other sections, would that be better for people?
There is no doubt that the second option is doing good to people. As I said earlier, the science of hadith is an ocean with no shore. If we burden people with memorizing "Sunan Ibn Majah" with all its hadiths, whether authentic or not, it may become mixed in the mind of one of them, even if he is a memorizer. Over time, the authentic may become mixed with the weak, so he thinks the authentic is weak and the weak is authentic. Rather, merely mentioning that this hadith is in the first book means it is authentic, and merely mentioning that this hadith is in the other book means it is weak. So, by this classification, we have helped people to memorize the authentic and distinguish it from the weak.
In any case, the end of the matter is that it should be said:
And people have different inclinations in what they love
So my inclination is that this classification is more beneficial for Muslims than memorizing "Sunan Ibn Majah" as it is ... an authentic hadith, under good, under weak, and another authentic, then fabricated, and so on. Here—as it is said—"the wheat and the chaff are mixed." This is confusion for readers, especially the general readers.
Also, among the ways of making things easy for people is that we delete the chains of narration and present to people the text of the hadith without the author's saying: "So-and-so narrated to me, he said: So-and-so narrated to me, from so-and-so, he said: So-and-so narrated to me." Because these chains of narration no longer have anyone among the people of hadith who is concerned with memorizing them. Previously, they could not argue with a hadith unless they narrated it with its chain, because the chain is the means to know the authenticity of the hadith from its weakness. But now, who understands if the greatest scholar of today or one who is not a student of hadith science reads a chain in "Musnad al-Imam Ahmad"? It is as if he is reading a foreign language: "So-and-so narrated to me from so-and-so." He does not know if he is trustworthy, if he has poor memory, if he is weak, and so on. So, completing the facilitation for people—and this is from my methodology that I followed in "Taqrib al-Sunnah bayna yadi al-Ummah"—is deleting these chains and presenting a summary of them. The summary is: authentic, good, weak, fabricated. This is what benefits the Muslims.