This view is unobjectionable. If a woman does this occasionally, there is no harm in it.

His statement, “men,” also excludes boys who have not reached puberty. It likewise excludes a third category: those of indeterminate sex. A person of indeterminate sex is one whose sex—whether male or female—is unknown. Congregational prayer is therefore not binding upon them, because the requisite condition is not established with certainty; and the basic presumption is freedom from liability and that one is not held accountable.

His statement, “men,” includes slaves. Thus, congregational prayer is binding upon slaves, because the textual proofs are general and do not exempt the slave. Moreover, Allah’s right takes precedence over the right of human beings. Accordingly, if a master orders his slave to commit a sin or to neglect an obligation, it is unlawful for him to obey him. If it is impermissible for the slave to commit a sin or neglect an obligation at his master’s command, then what of when he has not commanded him? By abandoning the congregation, he has neglected an obligation. This is one of the two views: that it is binding upon slaves just as it is binding upon free men.

Likewise, Friday prayer is binding upon slaves just as it is binding upon free men—and with even greater reason. For if attending the congregation, which recurs five times during the day and night, is obligatory for him, then Friday prayer, which recurs only once a week, is even more so. Furthermore, a congregation is, by consensus, a condition for the validity of Friday prayer, whereas it is not a condition for the validity of congregational prayer except according to a weak view. Thus, if the master’s right is set aside with regard to the five daily prayers, and we require the slave to perform them in congregation, then we likewise require him to perform the Friday prayer.

Some scholars said that it is binding upon the slave only with his master’s permission, and this is the stronger view (1).