About the obligation for the Qat’iy Daleel to be fulfilled in respect to the I’tiqaad (belief i.e. Aqeedah) in the branches (Furoo’) and the Usool and the statement of Al-Imaam An-Nawawi (rh)
Al-Imaam An-Nawawi said: ‘The Usool of the Deen is obligatory to have I’tiqaad in by way of the Tawaatur. As for the Furoo’ (branches) then it is not obligatory for the Tawaatur to be fulfilled (in respect to them)’.
This statement of An-Nawawi is not a Shar’iy Daleel; it is not valid to use it as evidence at all and so it is not permitted to present it as a Daleel (evidence) for the permission of Al-I’tiqaad (belief) in the branches without the Tawaatur being fulfilled (in respect to them). This is because it would represent deduction of a Hukm Shar’iy by other than the Adillah Ash-Shar’iyah (Islamic sources of evidence i.e. the Kitaab, Sunnah etc…) in the case where the speech of An-Nawawi is not from the Adillah Ash-Shar’iyah or from the Adillah Al-Aqliyyah (rational proofs).
Despite this it could be said (or argued) that Imaam An-Nawawi is a Mujtahid Imaam, this is his opinion, and so we follow it (Taqleed) from him whilst not adopting it as a Daleel Shar’iy. The answer to this is that the statement of An-Nawawi does not indicate that he is saying what has been said. This is because what An-Nawawi means is that the Usool of the Deen must have the Tawaatur fulfilled in respect to them whilst the Furoo’ branches do not have to be fulfilled by the Tawaatur.
The Usool is of two categories: The first is that which the I’tiqaad (belief) falls under and this includes everything that is related to the Aqaa’id (beliefs) i.e. that which has come in a Shar’iy text demanding Imaan in it. The second category is what falls under the Usool of the Ahkaam and these are the Adillah Ash-Shar’iyah (the Shar’iyah evidences i.e. (sources) the Kitaab, Sunnah, Ijmaa and Qiyaas). This is different to the Furoo’ (branches) because they represent a single category and they do not contain that which falls under the belief (I’tiqaad). Therefore everything that falls under the belief (I’tiqaad) is only from the Usool whilst there is nothing that enters into the I’tiqaad that is from the branches. For this reason An-Nawawi does not mean that it is permitted to have I’tiqaad (belief) in it because the issue of I’tiqaad does not come into it and this (the opinion that An-Nawawi said that the Furoo’ can be taken into the I’tiqaad) is not attributable to An-Nawawi. Rather what he meant (by his statement) is that it is not necessary for the Tawaatur to be fulfilled or met in respect to it (the Furoo’) in order for it to be acted upon (i.e. action undertaken based on it). As such his speech is taken to refer to taking the Furoo’ (to act upon) and not to believe in them.