عنوان مقاله [English]
Vengeance is developed in order to oblige the debtors to return their debts and to support those creditors who, for administration of justice, cannot deliver any acceptable document to the machinery of justice. The exercise of vengeance is applicable, sometimes by taking back the corpus of usurped property and some other times by taking an intervenient exchange. Religious jurists have different options about revenger’s style of owner ship when he tries to take the exchange instead of the corpus of property. Some of these jurists believe that the exercise of vengeance will result in the precarious possession and the other ones find it as the cause of permanent owner ship, and some of them, even have chosen the detailed word. Accepting each of this viewpoints will have different result and consequences, especially in that case where the revenger, after taking vengeance and receiving the exchange, will be capable of taking back the corpus of property. Briefly, the author of this essay believes that taking the intervenient exchange does not have a united effect and according to various hypotheses, it will have different consequences. This essay is compiled in order to specify the word of the essayist and criticize the word of the competitor.