No, most mosques admit both sexes all the year, although some segregate. Segregation during prayers has no real Islamic basis, unlike segregation in social life, which is covered in Quran in detail.

Not quite, segregation during prayers is compulsory and this is well established, it is the creation of physical separators that you're probably referring to, which while permitted is not required.

One such example:

"I offered the funeral prayer behind the Prophet (PBUH) for a woman who had died during childbirth and he stood up by the middle of the coffin." [Bukhari 1331]

The hadith you quoted says nothing about seggregation during prayers. It is about Janaza, the Islamic funeral ritual, which is a very short passage of stand-up prayer.

External accounts say segregation during prayer did not exist when Quran was being authored, not even when being compiled; in stark contrast to segregation during regular social life, which was well documented, and was part of nomadic Arabic culture well before Quran, though not as far as practiced by Muslims. Hadith books are not completely reliable; authentic narrations are intermingled with made-up passages (even authors themselves state that), Quran is the only fully reliable source of Islam (although more than 30 variants are found, the constitutional parts are consistent with each other, and variations are minor literal differences, some of which affect core theology).

I provided one example, there are countless other hadith indicating the same thing. Also, Quranism is not a widely held belief, please stop trying to pass off something fringe as if its what most Muslims would be inclined to believe. If we were to discard the hadith we simply could not practice a number of tenants of our religion, since they contain explanations for things like how to perform hajj, janaza and prayer. You shouldn't discard something that's been so well authenticated (as the sahih have been) simply because there are 3 hadith in their entirety over which there is slight doubt (which most have scholars have concluded was unwarranted).

Why do all hadith chains and Quran compilation stories start at 9th century if Islam arose in 7th century? Deliberate omission of recordings is the only sound explanation, because common Arab slave owners and traders were not illiterate (Muhammad, or who used that name, was definitely not, in fact, same hadith books -also verified by external accounts- say he avoided peace treaties and forced remove his name from one such treaty). I am well aware you cannot practice Islam so far without hadith, but as a former Muslim, it's their problem, not mine. In addition, hadith as a source has its limits, e.g. you cannot invent a crime out of hadith, unless it is already hinted at Quran; because that would be equivalent to inventing a new Quranic verse, which is forbidden by Quran.

>Why do all hadith chains and Quran compilation stories start at 9th century if Islam arose in 7th century?

Because the Arabs before then primarily transmitted information via oral tradition, while Arab slave owners and traders were literate the majority of people were not so it would have been useless to primarily transmit in writing back then. Secondly the idea that the Qur'an didn't exist in written form in the 9th century is patently false [0] and every authentic hadith transmission chain must go back to the time of the Prophet (PBUH) or it wouldn't be authentic.

>I am well aware you cannot practice Islam so far without hadith, but as a former Muslim, it's their problem, not mine.

It's no one's problem because almost no one subscribes to the belief system you're arguing in favor of.

>you cannot invent a crime out of hadith, unless it is already hinted at Quran; because that would be equivalent to inventing a new Quranic verse

Anything a hadith says is valid by virtue of us being told to follow the instructions of the Prophet (PBUH) in the Qur'an.

[0] https://www.livescience.com/51638-quran-manuscript-oldest-kn...

The source you cited at [0] is incomplete. They analysed it and found only the part with violent verses (so-called Medinan ones), not the part which resembles Biblical passages.

> every authentic hadith transmission chain must go back to the time of the Prophet [Muhammad Abdullah]

The thing is, we cannot prove his real identity (e.g. Mecca, where he had been allegedly born, has no historic traces apart from Kaaba), and some of the members, hence not a real chain up till 9th century. That was what I meant there were no hadith chain going before. You cannot cite a narration chain to an imaginary hero and call it authentic.

> Anything a hadith says is valid by virtue of us being told to follow the instructions of [Muhammad] in the Qur'an.

Hanafi and Jafari sects would not arise if that were the commonly held belief. The verse exists, but it does not automatically mean all hadith are as valid as they were in Quran. See where stoning penalty applies, reckon that thing is documented in hadith but thrown away from Quran. Hence we conclude stoning penalty does not exist. (according to Islamic precedence, Quran always prevails Sunnah)

>They analysed it and found only the part with violent verses (so-called Medinan ones), not the part which resembles Biblical passages.

So what? It's still evidence it existed.

>hence not a real chain up till 9th century

This is obviously nonsense historical revisionism.

>The verse exists, but it does not automatically mean all hadith are as valid as they were in Quran

Firstly I didn't say that and secondly neither hanafism nor jafarism are sects.

I have been invited to many mosques as part of multi faith, in the UK anyway, most I found women stayed at the back or were not allowed in the prayer hall

Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and/or flamebait to HN?

The norm in mosques is: Women & Men pray separately. In Islam, men praying in congregation get more reward then praying at home (and are sometimes required to pray at the mosque). For women, it's the other way around (more reward when prayed at home and it's not obligatory). Most mosques have a prayer hall for men & women. Usually less women come anyway because of the reason just explained, which usually means mosques have larger prayer hall for men than women. Some, due to lack of area they can build on, don't have space to build a prayer hall for women and thus just use the maximum capacity for the men because these are obliged to go pray at the mosque at least once a week on Friday. For women it's not obligatory to pray at the mosque.

>Usually less women come anyway //

Another reason for less women might be difficulties in going outside, I understand that in some regions controlled by Islamists it's expected (required?) that women are always accompanied by an adult male relative if they go out.

This constraint alone seems like it would almost always lead to Mosques having fewer females present; but I haven't properly modelled it.

Perhaps, but that is an extreme exception, so it follows that it has basically zero impact on why mosques are segregated.

In the early days of Islam, women were fairly independent. For example, the Prophet’s first wife was a prominent merchant and much wealthier than he was. One of his other wives, Aisha, was an extremely respected narrator of Hadith, even after his death.

Things changed slightly over time as: (1) local cultures mixed with the religion and (2) different branches of thought arose, each with their own interpretations and understanding of the religion. This, combined with the dominance of patriarchal societies in the region, led to women having fewer chances to participate in the workforce.

>Aisha, was an extremely respected narrator of Hadith, even after his death.

Continuing on from this she is termed the 'Mother of the Believers' and was a military commander during The First Fitnah.

>"it has basically zero impact on why mosques are segregated" //

Were you responding to a different comment, I made no mention of, nor does my comment relate to, segregation.

Ye from a mosque I visited in Dubai, they said this came about because women were expected to be at home tending to the children and housework.