Abstract:
Abstract: Based on the rule of retaliation, when the right holder refers to the ruler but is unable to prove or enforce their right, in this case, any individual who is aware of the existence of the debt can seek justice. This institution, which in terms of nature can be defined within the framework of real unilateral acts (Iqa'), creates a temporary ownership right for the retaliator against the person from whom the retaliation is taken.
Machine summary:
IB} Keywords: {VKRetaliation, Iqa'a, Real Right, Ownership, Debt RightVK} Introduction Perhaps at first glance, addressing the legal institution of retaliation in modern law may not seem worthy of attention; due to its conflict with the principle of the owner's dominance over their property and the prohibition of removing property from the owner's possession (Al-Hada'iq al-Nadirah 23/281; Article 31 of the Civil Code), there is no doubt regarding this institution's conflict with the public order of society; therefore, since maintaining public order is considered one of the most important goals of modern law, addressing an institution that conflicts with this goal does not seem interesting.
In some cases such as self-defense (Self-defense in Islamic Criminal Law 265/), killing someone whose blood is unprotected (Mahdur al-Dam), or the case mentioned in Article 630 of the Penal Code(1)-the Supreme Court has not considered taking someone else's property with the intention of enforcing one's own right and compensation as theft and has ruled for acquittal: Executive Verdict 486-70/11/26 and also Ruling No. 2, 37/10/5702, Branch 8 of the Court: recovery, theft, forgery, etc.
Now, in comparing natural obligation with retaliation (lex talionis), it can be said that in both cases, regardless of whether a legal institution is proven or not, they are considered to exist.
(Al-Urwah al-Wuthqa 731/6/; Al-Aqtab al-Fiqhiyyah 67/) or they claim the fall of the right (for example, by claiming the realization of a transfer/hawala: Jami' al-Maqasid 384/5/) or that they are absent, in which case, even if their denial is not proven, retaliation from their assets is permissible.
(
, 
, 
)
