How is the hadith: "Is there no man who would give charity to this man by praying with him?" to be understood?

The questioner : What is the ruling on a man's prayer...?

The Shaykh : No, this is undoubtedly well known to many people that they cite evidence for the opposite of what was previously explained, and there is no proof in that. Because, my brothers, you must note: the issue is regarding the repetition of a congregation, like the first congregation. The first congregation is the obligatory prayer of the time. It 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. So 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): A man stood up—in a weakly narrated version, it was Abu Bakr—and 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 authentic) gave charity to him and performed a voluntary prayer for 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 wants to pray alone, stand up and pray behind him. It is an obligatory prayer for him and a voluntary prayer for you. Thus, a congregational prayer where one person is performing an obligatory prayer and another is performing a voluntary prayer cannot be used as evidence for a second congregation where everyone is performing an obligatory prayer.
And what confirms this for you from the precise linguistic aspect of the hadith is: We can easily, and every one of us can 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 they had prayed the first congregation, and I—may Allah forbid it—stepped forward and led you in prayer. So, who is the one giving charity and who is the one receiving charity?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : So, this is the strongest 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 cite the hadith: which is narrated from the hadith of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri and Anas ibn Malik. Do they not say it is not valid to cite this hadith 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.