‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Abbās [d. 68 AH] said, “What prevents you, upon returning from your marketplaces or [conducting] your needs, from reciting the Qur’an [on your way back] and earning ten good deeds for every letter you recite?”


‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Abbas [رضي الله عنه] said, “What prevents you, upon returning from your marketplaces or [conducting] your needs and heading back to your families, from reciting the Qur’an [on your way back] and earning ten good deeds for every letter you recite?”

→ “az-Zuhd” – 1/756 | ‘Abdullah Ibn al-Mubarak | [Edition: al-Mi’rāj] |  Translated by: Abu Dawūd [Mustafa b. Saalih] al-Ḥushayshi

Imam Abu’l Hasanāt al-Luknawī al-Hanafī [d. 1886 CE] – The Dependence of Imam Abu Ḥanifah on Analogical Reasoning [Qiyās]

Fiqh [Jurisprudence]

“Our belief, and the belief of everyone who is equitable in their perception of Imam Abu Ḥanifah [May Allaah be pleased with him], is that: If he had lived long enough to reach the period where the Shari’ah was compiled and logged, after the ḥufadh travelled the lands collating and recording [knowledge], and he was then acquainted with the compilations, [we believe] he would have taken the knowledge therein [of authentic narrations] in place of his analogical reasoning, and dependence on Qiyas would have been minimal in the Ḥanafi school like it is in the other schools.

However, considering the evidences in his time were vastly spread out among the students of the companions in different cities, villages, and frontiers, and had not yet been compiled, this warranted an inundation of Qiyas, in comparison to the other schools, but this is due to necessity considering the textual proofs [hadiths], that concerned the matters he resorted to resolve through analogical reasoning, were not then available in his locale.

This is contrary to the condition of the other Imams, because the ḥufadh collated narrations and textual proofs in their time, from the various cities and villages, and compiled the narrations into works, and the narrations accorded with one another. This was the main cause of the prodigious amount of Qiyas in the Hanafi school, and the relative minimal dependency on Qiyas in the other schools.”

→ “al-Nafi’ al-Kabir” – 1/135 | Imam Abu’l Hasanāt al-Luknawī al-Hanafī | Translated by: Abu Dawūd [Mustafa b. Saalih] al-Hushayshi

Disclaimer: this quotation is not the original wording of Imam al-Luknawī, he merely elaborated, elucidated and commented on this excerpt in his esteemed work. I do NOT endorse the writer of the original excerpt, hence my attribution of this quote to Imam al-Luknawī al-Hanafī.


Imam al-Albani said, “Then if this is the excuse of Abu Hanifah, concerning what transpired with regard to his unintentional variance with authentic narrations – then it is an accepted excuse, without a doubt, because Allaah does not burden a person beyond more than they can bear – it is NOT permissible to disparage him [for his unintentional variance with authentic narrations] like some ignorant individuals do, rather what is required is respecting him, because he is an Imam from the Imams of the Muslims, from those whom the deen was preserved through. He will be [by the will of Allaah] rewarded for his verdicts, whether he was correct or otherwise.

Likewise it is not permissible for his excessive praisers, who exaggerate in his praise, to [stubbornly] remain upon his statements that are averse to authentic narrations, because they are NOT from his Madhhab.

‘Our Lord, forgive us and our brothers who preceded us in faith and put not in our hearts [any] resentment toward those who have believed. Our Lord, indeed You are Kind and Merciful.’ – [59:10]”

→ Sifat Salatu’l Nabi – Pg. 48 | Imam al-Albani [Edition: al-Ma’arif, Riyadh] | Translated by: Abu Dawūd [Mustafa b. Saalih] al-Hushayshi

al-Haytham b. Jamil [d. 213 AH] said, “I witnessed [Imam] Malik being asked 48 questions, and he replied ‘I don’t know’ to 32.”


al-Haytham b. Jameel said, “I witnessed [Imam] Malik ibn Anas being asked 48 questions, and he replied ‘I don’t know [la adri]’ to 32.”

“al-Intiqaa’ fi Fadaa’il al-a’immah” – 1/74 | Ibn ‘Abd-al-Barr al-Andalusi [Edition: Maktab al-Matbu’aat al-Islamiyyah | Ḥalab] | Translated by: Abu Dawūd [Mustafa b. Saalih] al-Hushayshi

Linguistic vs. Shar’i: The Categorisation of “Bid’ah” into ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’.

Fiqh [Jurisprudence]

Bid’ah is introducing an act of worship for which there is no basis in Islam. Something that has been introduced into the religion which has no general or specific basis for it – “No Salaf for it”. An unfounded practice that is not from the practice of the Messenger of Allaah ﷺ, nor the companions and their students.

Sects defined by their iniquities and excesses often justify their strange unfounded practices and aberrations by expressively appealing to a misrepresentation of an incident that took place where the words “good bi’dah” were stated, their stance towards bid’ah is defined by this general precept, raising, what they believe is an incontrovertible dictum, high above any discussion.

Bid’ah is a word that means “innovation”, the term is used broadly in the linguistic (lughawi) sense to refer to praiseworthy matters that do not clash with the Shari’ah. If employed strictly in the linguistic sense they do not intend by this matters that clash with the Shari’ah. That is the point Imam al-Shafi’i made.

Linguistic usage of the term Bid’ah:

  • Implication can be both praiseworthy/blameworthy [as it does not relate to the Shari’ah] – Matters of public interest, sought as a means to an end.
  • Revival and reintroduction of a practice that has a precedent in the Shariah. Example: ‘Umar reviving the congregational Tarawih prayers, thus not a bid’ah in the Shar’i sense. Though, the Prophet ﷺ did briefly pray the prayer, but he made it clear that he feared that it would be made obligatory on the people if he joined them. So the implication here refers to the unprecedented initiative to revive the prayer.

Shari’ usage of the term Bid’ah: 

  • Indefinitely negative. Blameworthy. Extremely reprehensible.
  • Concerns matters of worship.
  • No Precedent from the Salaf.

At this point in the discussion, they would then plead to authority and state that Imam al-Shafi’i used the words “good bid’ah” in a positive shari’ connotation, as if he would condone a bid’ah and not condemn it.

It is a clear misrepresentation of the context in which this statement appears. Imam al-Shafi’i’s discussion relates to Umar b. al-Khattab’s usage of the terms “Good Bid’ah”, and it’s connotation limited to being linguistic and that it does NOT clash with the Shari’ah or any rulings, and that it is not something averse to the guidance of the Messenger. A clear principle being whoever innovates anything into this religion of ours, that was not from it will have it rejected.

Imam al-Bayhaqi in “as-Sunan al-Kubra” states that it is a contrast between the technical application of the term bid’ah; the legislative [shari’] sense and the linguistic [lughawi] sense.

DX3hijjW0AA3vng (3).jpg

Ibn Kathir ad-Dimashqi further explains these two points in the first volume of his Tafsir, defining the technical [shari’] usage of the term “bid’ah” from the linguistic [lughawi] and how it relates to the remark of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab regarding the revival of Tarawih.

DX3hvR-XkAATbEz (2).jpg

Imam ash-Shafi’i was very strict in his compliance with the authentic narrations of the Messenger of Allaah ﷺ, and he was certainly very stern with those who promoted bid’ah that were averse to the pristine guidance of the Messenger of Allaah ﷺ – I would advise the reader to consult Imam al-Bayhaqi’s disquisition “Manaqib ash-Shafi’i” 1/471 to learn more about Imam Shafi’i’s disgust for bid’ah and his sternness in following the Sunnah, and his view on Bid’ah.



→  Written by: Abu Dawūd [Mustafa b. Saalih] al-Hushayshi

Ibn al-Mājīshün said, “I heard Malik [b. Anas] say, ‘Whoever introduces an innovation (bid’ah) into Islam that he views as good has alleged that Muhammad ﷺ betrayed Messengership.'”

Fiqh [Jurisprudence]

Ibn al-Mājīshün said, “I heard Malik [b. Anas] say, ‘Whoever introduces an innovation (bid’ah) into Islam that he views as good has alleged that Muhammad ﷺ betrayed Messengership. Allaah ﷻ said, “This day, I have perfected your religion for you.. (5:3) [from this we can understand that] whatever was not part of the religion that day is not part of the religion today.’”

→ al-I’tiṣām 1/62 | Imām Abu Isḥāq al-Shātibi [Edition: at-Tawhid] | Translated by: Abu Dawūd [Mustafa b. Saalih] al-Hushayshi

Note [Abu Dawud al-Hushayshi]: to briefly explain the point about the implication of bid’ah being allegations against the Messenger’s conveyance of the Message – it means those who introduce new matters inadvertently disregard the Shari’ah being complete/perfect at the time of the Prophet ﷺ.

Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb [d. 1791] – Dismissing rumours spread about him in a Letter to the Village of Qasīm, Najd.


They had asked him to clarify some of the rumours being spread, so he wrote this tract in response to them. I briefly only relate the parts of the letter that directly respond to unfounded accusations circulated about him today.

Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb [d. 1791] said: “…I do not testify that anyone from the Muslims are in Paradise or in Hell except for those whom The Messenger of Allaah ﷺ has testified. However I hope for the righteous and fear for the sinner…”

“…And I do not accuse anyone from the Muslims of being a kāfir (non-Muslim) due to a sin, and I do not expel them from the fold of Islām.”

→ This letter is found in the sixteen volume work, “ad-Durar as-Saniyyah fīl-Ajwibah an-Najdiyyah” – 1/29-35 | Translated by: Abu Dawūd [Mustafa b. Saalih] al-Ḥushayshi

Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb [d. 1791 CE] – Letter To The Scholars of Makkah


Tirades of abuse and polemical works against the character of the acclaimed scholar  Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb is not specific to our era. Rather, the unwarranted and unjustified streams of invective are coeval with the moment the Imam confuted the aberrant beliefs and practices of those among his contemporaries who harboured heterodoxical beliefs.

Since he first publicised a call to Tawhid, by initiating a fervid motion set upon returning people to orthodoxy; a pure understanding of the religion free from aberrations and strange beliefs, a revival movement that completely dismissed and rejected the perverse heteordoxical practices of shrines and venerating graves. His lauded motion was met with fierce opposition from those who felt threatened and were at risk of losing their influence, wealth, status.

His opposition would go beyond sensible dialogue and reasoning, resorting to slander, seeking a remissive approach to quieten the responses the treatises on orthodoxy and returning back to the understanding of the Sahabah, authored by Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, were receiving.

They promptly, at the expense of their credibility, would resort to authoring polemical letters, intent on casting doubt on the character and person of Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb as a way to indirectly discredit his work through calumny and defamation of his character.

Since then a great many expositional works were authored in response to these unfounded claims made by those individuals who rest their entire objection to the works of Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb on decontextualised scenes of inter-familial discord from his life. Their sheepish followers refuse to admit it was nothing short of a smear campaign that birthed the pejorative “Wahhābi” – an ad-hominem that sits on the tip of their tongue, one they bleat when faced with definitive proof from the authoritative sources to which they have no response; an attack on character.

The Historian and Chronicler, Ibn Ghannām [d. 1810] , recorded the letter sent by his teacher, Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, to the Scholars of Makkah explaining the situation:

May the Peace, Mercy and Blessings of Allaah be upon you, to proceed: We were beset by an issue, which you and others have already been informed about. The cause of it being the decision to extirpate [a shrine] that was built, on our lands, over the graves of the righteous, and with that, we forbade them from calling [doing du’a] to the righteous [they would direct their du’a to the inhabitants of the graves], and we ordered them to call to Allaah alone [without associating partners].

When these matters were imparted [onto the public] and what I briefly mentioned regarding the extirpation of the shrines on the graves, it was burdensome [disconcerting] on the majority, and they were then abetted by those who claimed to have knowledge; [their abetting is] for reasons you are aware of… [namely] following their desires, and other reasons, and they disseminated about us that we denigrate the righteous [by destroying their shrines], and that we are not upon the earnestness of scholars, and they raised the matter to the east and west, and have disparaged and insulted us in ways it is unbecoming of one who is sane to recall.‘”

→ Rawḍat al-Afkār wa al-Afhām Li-Murtād Ḥāl al-Imām wa-Ta’dād Ghazawāt Dhawī al-Islām [“Tarikh ibn Ghannām”] – 1/70 | Shaykh Ḥusyan b. Ghannam al-Iḥsa’i [d. 1810 CE] | Translated by: Abu Dawūd [Mustafa b. Saalih] al-Ḥushayshi

Ibn al-Shiḥnah al-Ḥanafi [d. 815 AH] – The Ḥanafi stance on following authentic narrations that are contrary to the view of Imam Abu Ḥanifah

Fiqh [Jurisprudence], Hadith

Ibn al-Shiḥnah al-Ḥanafi [d. 815 AH] – “If the ḥadith is authentic, yet it’s contrary to the view of the Madhḥab [Ḥanafi school], then act upon the authentic ḥadith; this will be your methodology, and the one [acting upon the authentic narration contrary to the view of the Ḥanafi school] is still regarded a Ḥanafi, because it is authentically proven that Imam Abu Ḥanifah said, “If the ḥadith is authentic, then it is my Madhḥab.”

→ Ḥashiyat Ibn ‘Abidīn – 1/71 | Ibn ‘Abidīn [Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah] | Translated by: Abu Dawūd [Mustafa b. Saalih] al-Hushayshi

After relating this principle, and the elucidation by Ibn al-Shiḥnah from “Sharḥ al-Hidayah”, Ibn ‘Abidīn [d. 1836 AD] explains that this principle is for someone who is adept and proficient in the study of ḥadith.

However, since the time of Abu Ḥanifah, a time that preceded a vast majority of the earliest scholars who ventured to compile ḥadith works, there are a great many reliable compilations composed by unanimously accepted scholars who endeavoured to compile, and sift through, works of ḥadith – Narrations that Imam Abu Ḥanifah and his disciples had no access to.

The aforementioned principle, that Imam Abu Ḥanifah established, confirms his lauded wisdom and insight. Far from being a provisional discretion, it proves his advertence in understanding that if an authentic narration reaches the people and presents them with a view contrary to his view then precedence is given to the narration over his opinion.

Imam al-Albani [d. 1999 CE] explains this principle further: “This is from their accomplished understanding and piety, in their indication that they do not inclusively comprehend the ENTIRE Sunnah [every aspect of it]. They may utter something that is ultimately proven contrary to the Sunnah that has not reached them, yet, they order us to adhere to the Sunnah [by giving precedence to the authentic narration], and to incorporate the authenticated understanding into their Madhḥab.”

→ Sifat-Salaat-an-Nabi – Pg. 46 | Imam al-Albani [Edition: al-Ma’arif, Riyadh] | Translated by: Abu Dawūd [Mustafa b. Saalih] al-Hushayshi

Anyone choosing to be at variance with a unanimously accepted narration proven authentic to them just because it is contrary to a view of Imam Abu Hanifah, after it is proven that the narration did not reach the Imam, but they still choose to favour the opinion and give it precedence over the authentic narration is, in effect, going against the Imam and his Madhḥab.

May Allaah have mercy on him.

Imam Abu’l Hasanāt al-Luknawī al-Hanafi [d. 1886 CE] – “Whenever I chance upon groups differing, I find the view of the People of Hadith to be the most accurate.”

Fiqh [Jurisprudence], Hadith

“Whoever views the matter impartially [without bias], and delves into the oceans of Fiqh and the principles of Fiqh – eluding deviation and straying [from the correct understanding] – they will ascertain, concerning the vast majority of subsidiary and fundamental matters the scholars differ in, that [the view of] the Madhab of the Muhaditheen [The People of Hadith] is stronger [and more accurate] than the views of the other Madhaahib [in these matters].

Whenever I chance upon groups differing, I find the view of the Muhaditheen [People of Hadith] to be the most accurate. How could they not be the most accurate [in these affairs] when they are the truly inheritors of the Prophet ﷺ and the representatives of his legislation?”

→ “Imam al-Kalam fi-Ma Yata’alaqu Bi’l-Qira’ati Khalf al-Imaam”| Translated by: Abu Dawūd [Mustafa b. Saalih] al-Hushayshi

Defending the Honour of Umm al-Darda’ as-Sughra


We find feminist bloggers, seemingly unhinged in their plight against obstructive gender norms, shamelessly republish unfounded interpretations on narrations, which are unjustifiably considered equivocal by their uneducated peers, but fairly straightforward and direct to anyone who is of sound-mind, versed in hadith literature, and w/ a first-hand understanding of the texts, as opposed to merely a second-hand understanding of the context.

They appeal to a false interpretation of a narrative that supports their misplaced zeal in trying to equate women to men, on all levels, but are disillusioned to find that to equate them on all levels, without consideration of their dispositional/biological differences, is unjust to say the least. But of course, both genders excel if suitability is taken into account.

These feminist bloggers never fail to implicitly subject themselves, as women, to the male standard; measuring their worth against men. Making a competition of something that was never meant to be one. Islam explicitly makes it clear that men and women complete each other, as opposed to inciting one against the other.

Now you find Muslim feminist bloggers going the extra mile by reflecting their unfounded specious feminist principles on the greatest women of the Salaf (pious predecessors), decontextualising cherry-picked narratives, and coupling it with a “progressive” outlook championed by contemporary, ratbag, self-proclaimed spiritual scholars; you’ll come to see through their guise by the end of this article.

Stepfeed” ever-exacerbating the matter, commission their reprobate authors to write about semi-serious issues when not recycling anything remotely provocative and against the patriarchy into an article.

From gratifying themselves by publishing articles advocating for “queer-friendly mosques”, that accommodate people who build their entire identity on their sexual perversions, to cheering on an obscure mosque “with a female imam”, where of course the rows consist of hijabless women and beardless men, nestled against each other in an unornamented room, unsure whether their worship consists solely of disobedience.


The article accuses a female scholar from the Salaf, a wife of a notable companion, also a student of the companions, of issuing a fatwa that enables women to pray shoulder-to-shoulder with men (a Blatant Lie, btw, you’ll come to see)

Umm al-Darda’ as-Sughra”, the article introduces her, “refused to conform to gender norms when she was a child. She often prayed in the men’s rows.” this is how Rayhana Khalaf (with her very ironic name) chose to introduce this great scholaress from the Salaf to her readers.

Author of the article continues, “as a grown-up, she continued to pray shoulder-to-shoulder with men, and went on to issue a fatwa allowing the practice.

No references to these claims beyond basing their credibility on equally unfounded points made on other unreliable sites, but these false interpretations are just assertions by the likes of Carla Power and Amina Wadud, which are referenced in the brief paragraphs on Umm al-Darda’s Wikipedia page, individuals who seek to profit from casting ambiguity on a narration.

➤ Who is Umm al-Darda’ as-Sughra?



“Asadu’l Ghabah fi-Ma’rifat’il Sahabah” – 1/ 1512 | Abu’l Hasan Ibn al-Athir [d. 1160 CE] | [Edition: Dar Ibn al-Hazm]

[In the excerpt above] Imam al-Bukhari’s teacher, Imam Ali ibn al-Madini [d. 234 AH] explains: “Abu’l Darda’ had two wives, they were both named Umm al-Darda’, one of them named Khayra bint Abi’l-Hadrad, who witnessed the Messenger of Allaah (thus she was a companion), and also a second Umm al-Darda’, a younger one, whom he married after the death of the Prophet , her name is Hujaymah al-Wassabiyyah (in other places, al-Awsabiyyah), whom we relate (ahadith) from.

tahnk you.jpg

“Siyar A’laam an-Nubala'” – 4/277 | Imam al-Dhahabi | [Edition: Mu’asasat ar-Risala]

Imam al-Dhahabi [in the excerpt above] states, “She is Umm al-Darda’ as-Sughra (the younger one), she related a great amount of knowledge from her husband Abu’l Darda’, and read the Qur’an to her husband when she was young. She lived a long time, and was known for her knowledge, her deeds, and her asceticism (zuhd)

Ibn Jabir and ‘Uthman ibn Abi’l ‘Atikah explain, that Umm al-Darda’ was a young orphan in the care of Abu’l Darda’, and that she would pray with him in the rows of men, and listen in on the Qur’an sittings and memorise Qur’an, until one day Abu’l Darda’ told her: “go catch up with the rows of the women. – She matured, and thus is required to pray in the rows of the women, she didn’t object… she actually obeyed her husband’s commands, and went to pray in the rows of women, as Islam clearly stipulates.

ice one.jpg

Ibn Jabir and ‘Uthman Ibn Abi’l ‘Atikah| “Siyar A’laam an-Nubala'” – 4/278 | Imam al-Dhahabi | [Edition: Mu’asasat ar-Risala]

The point about her issuing a fatwa that states it is fine to pray shoulder-to-shoulder with men, then this is nothing short of a slanderous lie that is based on a misunderstanding of a hadith Imam al-Bukhari narrates in his “Tarikh as-Saghir”, Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali explains in his commentary on “Sahih al-Bukhari”:

Umm al darda

“Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari” – 4/152 | Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali | [Edition: Ibn al-Jawzi]

Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali [explains in the excerpt above] – “Umm al-Darda’ would sit in her prayer (between the two Sajdahs) in the same stance men would sit, and she was a faqihah (adept at fiqh)” meaning she had knowledge on the matter, she understood what she was doing. She studied under ‘Aisha bint Abi Bakr (May Allaah be pleased with her).

Ibn Rajab relates that Ibn ‘Umar would order his wives to sit in the stance, Imam al-Albani clarifies in his work that there is no difference in the sitting between men and women, no specification, and what is required from both is the same. Reports like this simply substantiate this view.

Logical points to consider:

  • Umm al-Darda’ was young, and when she matured, she prayed in the female rows, as Islam demands.
  • She was surrounded by Companions and Scholars. To suggest she would motion a ridiculous fatwa like that, in the midst of these great scholars, both male/female, and no one objects is an insult on the character of anyone who remained silent.
  • No classical book even suggests anything in favour of what these loudbints feminists suggest. You’d think at least one scholar would object or even mention it in their book. Yet, they praise her for being a true Muslimah, and one who followed the Sunnah.
  • The matter was clarified above. She was a true scholar.

Umm al-Darda’s love for Abu’l Darda’ was immense she refused to marry anyone after him, even though he died early in her life. She was proposed to by Mu’awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, and she refused. She told Abu’l Darda’ on his death bed, “you sought my hand through my parents, in this dunya, and they accepted, and I desire to keep you for myself in the hereafter.” – When Mu’awiyah proposed, she told him about the agreement she made with Abu’l Darda’, and he understood and advised her, “upon you is to fast.” — exactly what the Messenger of Allaah ﷺ advised those who aren’t married to do.


“Siyar A’laam an-Nubala'” – 4/278 | Imam al-Dhahabi | [Edition: Mu’asasat ar-Risala]

➤  Who else is on this list?

Just before you think things couldn’t get worse, you find Amina Wadud is featured as a scholar on the list – presented on the same platform as Umm al-Darda’.

The woman behind this entire fitna, Amina Wadud, is praised as “the first woman in Britain to lead British Muslims in mixed congregational prayers and deliver the Friday sermon. She has actually led mixed-gender prayers ever since 1994…”


Heralding her interpretations as “progressive and groundbreaking views” — what are her views, btw? Just to remind you this is the same woman who insulted a Prophet of Allaah.

She called Ibrahim (peace be upon him) a “deadbeat dad” and Sarah (his wife) “a selfish b**ch”, simply because she fails to understand the story of Hajar and Isma’il, who were left in the desert, by the command of Allaah, and they were left in the care of the One who created them. Ibrahim (peace be upon him) fulfilled every command, and passed every test.

Another one of her tweets claims that the Sunni schools of thought exist due to “picking and choosing.” So clearly, she’s never heard of usul al-fiqh, or has any understanding of how the schools developed either. She also has some strong Quranist tendencies. I’m fairly certain she isn’t fluent in Arabic, and she hasn’t memorised the Qur’an, too. There’s a surprise. She made it on the list, too, of “Scholars”.

If anything, this only should strengthen your resolve to learn Arabic and safeguard yourself against disgusting people like Amina Wadud who present themselves as scholars, but haven’t even memorised the Qur’an, and can’t even read an Arabic restaurant menu — you should never want to be at the mercy of these disgusting individuals. Learn Arabic.

May Allaah destroy her and her likes.

Ruling on a woman leading men in prayer

Abu Dawūd [ibn Salih] al-Hushayshi