Then is it permissible in such a case to make one person whose [life] is inviolable (1) a ransom for another person whose [life] is inviolable (2)? Rather, if this were permissible, the reverse would be [more appropriate] (3). If a man possessed only enough to support either his son or his daughter’s son, he would be obliged, by the consensus of the Muslims, to give precedence to supporting his son. Likewise, if he could not (4) ward off death or harm (5) except from either his son or his daughter’s son, it would be prescribed for him to ward it off from his son. This is especially so when they regard kinship with the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—as the principal basis of honor, and count Ali’s kinship with the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—among his greatest virtues; the same applies to al-Hasan and al-Husayn.

It is well known that a son is closer than any of them. How, then, could the more distant relative be given precedence over the closer one when kinship is the only distinction?

Anas ibn Mālik said:

“If it had been decreed that there should be a prophet after the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—Ibrāhīm would have lived.”

Others disputed this statement of Anas and said:

“When Allah wills a man to be a prophet, it does not follow that his son must also be a prophet.”

Furthermore, why would Ibrāhīm have been a ransom for al-Husayn but not for al-Hasan? Authentic hadiths indicate that al-Hasan was the better of the two, and this is likewise agreed upon by Ahl al-Sunnah and the Shia.

It is established in an authentic hadith that “he would say concerning al-Hasan: ‘O Allah,