The Nature of Retaliation

There is a question that if an expropriator or debtor decides to reimburse his/her liability following the owner's retaliation, is it legitimate for him/her to claim the retaliated money or object and return the property to its owner in exchange? In another word, is it possible to validate the exchange of the properties without going through any contract? The answer to this question is contingent upon how we interpret the nature of retaliation. If retaliation is categorized as Badal al-hayloolah (substitute of equal value given by expropriator), there would be no need for conducting a new transaction, but, if retaliation is construed as some type of transaction, no doubt that a new transaction and contract would be necessary to take place preceding to the exchange of the properties. Each of these two views has its advocates among the scholars. Yet, there are scholars who take a moderate position. This paper, in the first place, invalidates and rejects all arguments proposed by those views. And secondly, by discussing the traditions on retaliation, and based on their absoluteness, supports this idea that retaliation is a transaction per se. Definitely, realization of this transaction is subject to the intention of the retaliator for a complete ownership of the money or the object.