Is every Muslim obligated to know the evidence?

The Shaykh : The questioner says: One who follows the Salafi methodology must be... verifying the evidence... asking about the evidence. Should he not also have adopted a specific school of jurisprudence? And how can all ordinary Muslims take the rulings from their evidence?
It appears that the questioner was not present for the previous answers to such a question, so we are forced to... the answer... the answer. We say: Not every Muslim is obligated to know the legal evidence; this is not possible. Rather, he should fear Allah as much as he is able; this is from one aspect. From another aspect, when we say or call for adhering to what the Salaf were upon, we mean that the Salaf did not have a school of Abu Hanifa, a school of Malik, a school of al-Shafi'i, and a school of Ahmad.

Another questioner: 'Ali.

The Shaykh : The school of Ali; these schools did not exist with the Salaf. So, is the rule, or does one think that they were all scholars? Of course, the answer is: No. Rather, ; so the fewest among people were the scholars. What did the rest of the people do? How did they worship Allah? I said in the past that He, the Exalted, said: ; so the meaning of the claim of adopting the school of the righteous Salaf is not that we impose on a person who has not been given the opportunity to learn that he must adhere to the opinion of so-and-so. Rather, ; he may ask Zayd one time and Bakr another time, and so on.
Whereas adopting the Hanafi school, that is it, it is necessary... Hanafi; because his father and mother are Hanafi, and even if there is a disagreement between them, he follows his father in his school. If his father is Hanafi, he is Hanafi, and he must live that way; this is what we deny, and this is what the Salaf did not know at all.
In summary: Every Muslim does what he is able to do, and that does not mean adhering to a specific school of jurisprudence and not accepting an alternative; no, rather .