As-salaam Alaikum sisters and brothers Welcome to another huge discrepancy in the Hadith literature. This looks to be a celebrity hadith as it's preserved by almost all collections.
It says: "Never will succeed such a nation as lets their affairs carried out by a woman." (Bukhari, Maghazi, 82, Fitan, 18; Tirmidhi, Fitan, 75; Nasai, Qudat, 8; Ahmad b. Hanbal, V, 43, 51, 38, 47).
This Hadith site where I found the narration probably felt too ashamed to mention the name of the narrator .. but I presume it is that little known guy named Abu Bakra. For long I mixed him up with Abu Bakr Siddiq - my profuse apology for that - Abu Bakr Siddiq was a great man and the first righteous Caliph. This Abu Bakra is most likely a fictitious name concocted either by the so-called sahaba clan during the early Ommayad period or by Bukhari & co. for the purpose of bundling up false narrations.
Hadith followers have tried to justify this hadith by saying that "the duty of judging necessitates having full view, being shrewd and having experience related to the incidents in life. The fact that the experience of women is less and that they are not involved in the incidents in life very much is very important." To some extent this might have been applicable in the 7th century. At present such ideas may exist in remote places of Afghanistan etc. But otherwise, in most parts of the world this explanation is completely null & void. Most importantly it has no link with the Quran which narrates the event of a female queen (queen of Sheba or Saba) who embraced Islam in the era of Prophet Solomon and remained queen after embracing Tawheed. This was hundreds of years before the 7th century. Allah Almighty never mentions that queen of Saba had to step down as queen after becoming a Muslim (submitter). Neither did Prophet Solomon tell her nor suggest that she should step down as leader of her land after her conversion. For reference please check Quranic Verses 27:22-44.
The Hadith institution's second argument is just as absurd. They say, quote: "The judge needs to have some sessions with male scholars, witnesses, plaintiffs and defendants. It is forbidden for a woman to have a session with men for fear of mischief." I have no idea what these people are trying to say. Witnesses who testify in courts can be men and women as per Quranic rules (more on this aspect in a while). Plaintiffs and defendants can surely be of either gender. Which law demands that a judge needs some sessions only with male scholars? Moreover if a judge has any sessions with plaintiff or defendant, it has to be in the presence of their attorneys. Not that there is anything wrong for a woman to talk business with a judge alone. Have you ever heard of a judge sexually assaulting a female plaintiff or defendant alone in a courtroom? Let us not be silly. If a judge ever did that, it would be a very isolated incident by a sick judge who would be barred from practicing his profession ever again in his lifetime.
The third argument of the Hadithists attempts to use Verse 2:282 (about two female witnesses) to deem women unsuitable as leaders even though this Verse has NOTHING to do with leadership, be it man or woman. Quoting the Hadith site as follows:
Allah states one of the features of women regarding witnessing as follows: "And get two witnesses, out of your own men And if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her " (al-Baqara, 2/282). Therefore, women are not deemed appropriate for the post of a president or a governor.
Well? So what? How does this Verse reject women from becoming leaders has not been explained.
The Noble Quran instructs two female witnesses only in the matter of writing debt transactions, nothing else. If a woman becomes president or prime minister, she won't be required to do menial jobs like serving as witness for signing a debt contract or any deal/agreement for that matter. All of that will be taken care of by other cabinet members. Moreover, even if she is required to serve as a witness for a debt contract, why would it be difficult to find another lady to accompany her with the job? It would not. So the hadith supporters' argument of two female witnesses for disallowing female leadership is totally senseless and has no bearing on Quranic contents whatsoever.
Now here is the anti-climax. If you check that Hadith site you will find that after a while the Hadithists themselves give up putting lipstick on trash. The site writes "However, the reasons given above may be insignificant for the believing women who were educated in accordance with Islamic criteria, who have a good command of law ....." It also states, quote: "The judgment made by the Turkish Higher Committee for the Religious Affairs is as follows: 'In Islam, there is no discrimination between men and women because they are humans; both are responsible for the orders and prohibitions of Allah. All people, whether men or women, are responsible for improving the earth and worshipping Allah.' " Hence, in other words, the Hadith institution has itself rejected that mad, bad, illogical and FALSE hadith by Abu Bakra (or whoever) but funnily enough it persists to exist in collections called "sahih." It's preserved despite the acknowledgement of its nonsensical contents. Applause !! So much for the common sense of our "scholars."
This hadith thumper's stance on defending this weird and anti-Quranic hadith-narration was going nowhere. He was too afraid to discard the hadith so he stamps his own reasons for explaining the hadith as "insignificant" for educated believing women. That goes far enough to discreetly admit that this hadith is not worthy of believing educated women.