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.
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]
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).
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...
> 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)
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.