How is the hadith: “Is there no man who would give charity to this man and pray with him?” to be understood?

The questioner : Do we say that the man’s prayer...?

The Shaykh : No, this is without a doubt well known to many people that they use it as evidence for the opposite of what was previously explained, and there is no proof in that. Because, my brothers, you must note that the issue is about repeating a congregation, like the first congregation. The first congregation is the obligatory prayer of its time. The obligatory prayer of the time was prayed, and then a group comes wanting to pray the obligatory prayer of the time as well. This is the issue: is this second congregation prescribed or not?
The answer is: No, as we mentioned. As for the hadith you mentioned last, its text is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prayed the midday or afternoon prayer one day, and then a man came wanting to pray. He (peace and blessings be upon him) said to those around him who had already prayed the obligatory prayer in its time with the Messenger (peace be upon him): . So a man stood up; in a weakly authenticated narration, it was Abu Bakr, and he prayed with him. Here there is a congregational prayer, but is this the congregation we were discussing? The answer is: No. Why? Because the man wanted to pray alone, so Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (if the narration is correct) gave charity to him and prayed a voluntary prayer with him. There is no harm in this action. Therefore, the hadith indicates what actually happened. If you prayed with the first congregation and found a person who was late and wanted to pray alone, stand up and pray behind him. It is an obligatory prayer for him and a voluntary prayer for you.
So, a congregational prayer where one person is praying an obligatory prayer and another is praying a voluntary prayer cannot be used as evidence for a second congregation where everyone is praying an obligatory prayer. And what confirms this for you from the precise linguistic aspect is in the hadith: . We can easily answer the following question based on the explicitness of the hadith: Who is the one giving charity and who is the one receiving charity between these two men? Who is the one giving charity?

The questioner : Abu Bakr.

The Shaykh : Abu Bakr; is that not so? He is the one giving charity, and the one receiving charity is the one who prayed the obligatory prayer.
Now, remember this, and let us look at our reality today regarding the separation in congregational prayer. We entered this mosque after these people had prayed the first congregation, and I (may Allah forbid it) stood up and led you in prayer. So, who is the one giving charity and who is the one receiving charity?

Those present : There is none.

The Shaykh : So, this is the greatest proof that linking this hadith to our previous topic is a mistake in both structure and meaning. For this reason, the scholars of the Hanafi school specifically say: It is not valid to use the hadith: as evidence, which is narrated from the hadith of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri and Anas ibn Malik. They say it is not valid to use this hadith as evidence because it is an analogy of the strong to the weak, and this is not permissible. It is an analogy of the strong to the weak, and this is not permissible. The explanation of this is: This is a voluntary congregation: This is a voluntary congregation; because if it were not for the one giving charity, there would be no congregation. It is a voluntary congregation, so how can an obligatory congregation be built upon it? This is an analogy of the strong to the weak, and this is not permissible.
Perhaps this extent is sufficient, and praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds.