Exchange is the conversion of one currency for another i.e. the interchange of one currency with another. This would be either exchanging one currency for another of the same type, such as the exchange of gold for gold, and silver for silver, or the exchange of one currency for another of a different type, such as the exchange of gold for silver or vice versa. As for the exchange of one currency for another currency of the same type, this necessitates equality between the two types and differences are absolutely prohibited, since this would be Riba which is forbidden, such as the exchange of gold for gold, or the exchange of intrinsic paper money – which can be exchanged for its value in gold for gold. Therefore, the exchange rate does not apply in this case.

As for the exchange of one type of money or one currency for another of a different type, such as the exchange of gold for silver, or the exchange of pounds sterling for the U.S. dollar or the exchange of a ruble for a franc, this is permitted, provided the exchange takes place on the spot. The exchange rate would be the rate of one currency in ratio to the other, in other words the exchange rate would be the ratio of exchange between two different currencies.

What prompts people to exchange is the need of one of the exchanging parties for the currency of the other party. As for the exchange taking place between people in the currency circulating in one particular country, such as the exchange of silver for gold, or gold for silver, this is straightforward and would be between gold and silver, because the country would be operating both the gold and the silver standard and the exchange rate would be fixed between the two currencies, according to the market rate. There would be no harm if the exchange rate fluctuated between the two types of currency used in one country, because this would be just like the fluctuation in the commodities’ prices.

As for the exchange between two different currencies of two countries or more, this is regarded as a source of problems. It would therefore be appropriate to investigate its reality and clarify the Shari’ah rule regarding it and regarding the exchange rate as such.

As for its reality, this is reflected in the fact that countries operate different standards and the position of countries who operate the gold standard differs from those who operate the non-exchangeable paper money standard. Therefore, when several countries operate the gold standard, the exchange rate between these countries or the ratio of exchange between their currencies would consequently remain almost stable. This would be so if they were operating the metallic standard, because in fact, one would not in this case be exchanging two different currencies where the value of each one of them may alter with regard to the other in accordance with the level of supply and demand related to each of them. Instead, one would be exchanging gold for gold, and the only difference would be the fact that gold in one country has been coined in a different shape and stamped with a symbol different to that used in the other country. The exchange rate would then be determined by the ratio between the weight of the net gold to be found in the currency of one country and the net weight of gold to be found in the currency of the other country. The exchange rate between the countries who operate the gold standard would only fluctuate within two specific margins which would be dependent on the transfer charges of gold between them. This is known as the gold limits (Haddi Dhahabiyy). Since these charges are minimal, we can say that the exchange rate between countries operating the gold standard is virtually stable. Furthermore, if a country operated the intrinsic paper money standard, it would be in exactly the same position as a country that operates the metallic standard, because the real circulation taking place is that of the metallic money. The only difference would be that the metallic money itself circulates, whereas paper money circulates in lieu of it, for it acts as representative to it. Therefore, the intrinsic paper money would be dealt with in exactly the same way as far as the exchange rate is concerned. In fact the rule of intrinsic paper would in all aspects be the same as metallic money.

However, if a country operated fiduciary paper money i.e. banknotes, the gold in this case would only be covering some of the fiduciary money’s value and not all of its value, even though the country would be operating the gold standard. Therefore, the value of the fiduciary paper money would differ according to the gold reserves covering it, and this would determine the exchange rate between them. This exchange rate would however remain stable and easy to monitor, for it would depend on the percentage rate of gold reserves whose quantities would be defined.

However, if a host of countries were to operate the non-exchangeable paper money standard, the issue of fixing the exchange rate between these countries would then arise. This is because when the exchange of currency to gold at a fixed price becomes impossible, then the problem facing these countries operating the non-exchangeable paper money standard is the way to fix the exchange rate between them.

Solving this problem lies in the fact that the various types of paper money are considered commodities which are exchangeable in the international money market. They in fact do not buy these notes for their own worth, but for their ability to purchase other commodities in their countries of origin. Therefore, the ratio between two paper currencies, or the exchange rate between them, would be determined according to the purchasing power of each paper money in its respective country of origin.

Therefore, the exchange rate would be determined by the ratio between two currencies. If for instance Egypt and Italy were operating the paper money standard, and the Italian lira would purchase in Italy 10 units of commodities, whereas the Egyptian pound would purchase in Egypt 100 units of commodities, the ratio between these two currencies would be 1 Egyptian pound for 10 Italian liras. However, the exchange rate could fluctuate because the paper currencies are in fact commodities which people exchange and trade in the international money market; they do not buy them for their own worth, but for their ability to purchase goods and services from the countries which issued them. Their value would therefore increase when the prices of commodities decrease in their respective countries of origin, and decrease when those prices increase. Therefore, the benefit that one makes from a foreign currency depends on its purchasing power. If this power increases the benefit we gain, our willingness to pay more with our own currency in order to obtain an equivalent amount of that foreign currency would also increase. On the other hand, if the purchasing power diminishes then the benefit obtained from that currency would also diminish, and our willingness to pay more with our own currency in order to obtain an equivalent amount of that foreign currency would also diminish. This is because that foreign currency could no longer purchase in its country of origin the same units of commodities it used to, while our currency would still maintain its value.

Let us suppose that in a specific year, the level of prices in Egypt and England were 100 in both countries, and that the exchange rate between them was 1.00 Egyptian pound for £1.00 sterling. In this case the exchange rate would be equal, and since the incentive to exchange is to achieve a sufficiency in the need for English goods, therefore, no great demand for, nor turning away from pounds sterling would occur in Egypt. However, if the price level were to rise in Egypt to 200, the pound sterling value would double in Egypt, and the exchange rate would become 1 Egyptian pound for £0.50 sterling. Therefore, a demand for sterling pounds would be generated due to the relative price decrease in England whereas, the demand for the Egyptian pound would diminish due to the relative price increase in Egypt. This would entail a decrease in the demand for the Egyptian pound by the English, and their demand for Egyptian goods would decrease, and they would inevitably prefer their own goods with their present prices because the prices of Egyptian goods would have doubled while their own prices remained the same. Therefore, the exchange rate would change according to changes in the commodity prices of the country which had issued the currency. If the price level in one country rises as far as another country is concerned, due for instance to the increases in money supply, the exchange rate between these two countries would inevitably change, leading to a decrease in the foreign value of the country in which the prices had risen. The exchange rates between the currency of one country and foreign currencies would be in line with the relationship established between the other foreign currencies’ exchange rates themselves. In other words, if for instance the Iraqi Dinar equalled 100 Iranian riyal, 200 Italian liras or 400 French francs, the exchange rates between the foreign currencies would therefore be, in Iran, 1 Iranian riyal for 2 Italian liras or 4 French francs, and in Italy it would be 1 Italian lira for 2 French francs or 0.5 Iranian riyal and so on. This is in fact what would happen if every country left the foreign value of her currency to fluctuate according to the fluctuation of price levels, without imposing heavy restrictions upon international trade and upon the transfer of foreign currency into local currency or local into foreign currency. However, a country may attempt to sustain the foreign value of her currency despite high prices at home, by restricting the local importers’ demand for foreign goods by reducing the number of import licences, for instance. In such a case, the harmony between the various exchange rates in the various countries would be disturbed. This difference between the exchange rates in different countries could not occur unless some countries opted to impose restrictions on their foreign currency transactions. Because if there were no restrictions, a businessman would be able to exchange the currency and make a profit. Thus other people would rush to seize this business opportunity and do the same, which would in turn lead to the establishment of harmony between the various exchange rates once again.

These restrictions imposed upon exchange transactions have become a widespread phenomenon in many countries in wartime and at times of severe economic unrest.We find that at such times, the value of the local currency in a country who subjects her monetary transactions to such restrictions would vary from one country to another according to the monetary system applied in each country. Therefore, in a country where the uniform exchange rate is applied, the official exchange rate between the currency of such a country and the country mentioned earlier would remain stable, for the currency would be purchased by the central bank and the banks which are licensed to undertake foreign currencies transactions at a fixed rate and sell these currencies at a fixed price.

For countries who operate the uniform exchange rate system and whose central banks do not undertake to buy or sell foreign currencies at a specific price, the prices of foreign currencies would fluctuate from time to time according to supply and demand. The exchange rate system in a country which allows the fluctuations of foreign currencies according to supply and demand is described as the variable exchange rate system. It is noticed that in a country operating such a system, the exchange rate would not stem exclusively from the fluctuation in price levels between her and other countries, it could also stem from restrictions imposed on international trade, or from a deficiency in the balance of trade experienced by various countries for whatever reason. The variable exchange rate system would in some countries be legitimate, as is the case in Lebanon, where the government allows the fluctuation in exchange rates according to the daily fluctuations of supply and demand. In other countries, the variable exchange rate system could be illegal, but despite this, some transactions would take place between individuals, which include the purchase and the sale of currencies, or foreign accounts, at prices completely different from the official prices.

This is regarding the exchange, and the exchange rate throughout the world. The Shari’ah rule concerning exchange and the exchange rate is as follows: The Islamic State operates the gold standard, regardless of whether she uses the metallic, or paper money standard (which would have gold and silver backing equal to its nominal value), and regardless of whether she adopted a specific fixed distinct feature or not for the metallic money. She is obliged to abide by this standard because it is a Shari’ah rule upon which many Shari’ah rules depend. Exchange between two units of the same type within the Islamic State must be equal, and it would be forbidden to have a disparity. Likewise, exchange between two currencies of the same type would follow exactly the same rule outside the Islamic State. The Shari’ah rule is one and does not change. As for the exchange between two different standards, it is permitted to have equality as well as disparity, such as with the exchange between gold and silver, on condition that the hand-over takes place on the spot i.e. “hand to hand” in gold and in silver. There is no difference here between the transactions of exchange undertaken at home or abroad, because the Shari’ah rule is the same and does not change. Just as disparity in the exchange between gold and silver (on the spot), would be allowed at home, so would exchange between them be allowed abroad. The same rule would apply in the exchange between the Islamic State’s currency and other countries’ currencies for both metallic money and the intrinsic paper money i.e. the money that is backed by an amount of gold and silver exactly equal to its nominal value. Disparity in these transactions would be permitted if the standards were different, only on condition that the hand-over is on the spot in gold and silver. However, disparity would not be permitted when the currencies are of the same standard. Equality must be observed, for disparity in this case would be Riba and that is forbidden from a Shari’ah viewpoint.

As for fiduciary paper money, which is partially backed i.e. with a reserve that is less than its nominal value, the monetary value of this currency would be considered only up to the amount of reserves it holds. It would be exchanged against the Islamic State’s currency on this basis. Consequently, this currency would be valued on this basis and according to such valuation it follows the same Shari’ah rule as that applies to the exchange between gold and silver metallic money, with only the value of the reserve considered when evaluating the exchange.

As for non-exchangeable paper money, which does not act as a substitute for either gold nor silver, nor is it backed by gold or silver, its rule according to Shari’ah would be the same as that of the two currencies of different types. Therefore, it is permitted to have in such transactions both equality and disparity, but they must be traded on the spot.

Therefore, exchange between the Islamic State’s currency and the currencies of other countries is allowed, just like the exchange between her local currency. It is also permitted for the exchange to include a disparity because they are of two different standards, on condition that the hand-over is on the spot (“hand to hand”) as far as gold and silver are concerned.

The ratio between gold and silver, or the exchange rate between them would not be totally stable. It would rather fluctuate according to the gold and silver market prices, with no difference between the local or the foreign exchange. The same would apply to the Islamic State’s currency and the currencies of other countries; i.e. it would be permitted for the exchange rate between them to fluctuate. However, the exchange rate between the Islamic State’s currency and the currencies of other countries would not have an effect upon the Islamic State for two reasons:

1. The Islamic lands possess all the raw materials that the Ummah and the State need. Therefore, her need for other countries’ commodities would not be essential or necessary. She is self-sufficient of her local goods, thus not affected by exchange fluctuations.

2. The Islamic lands possess commodities which all other countries need, for example oil. The Islamic State could restrict the sale of such commodities unless they are paid for by gold. The State could do away with other countries’ commodities by relying solely on her own local commodities, and who ever owns commodities that all other peoples need, could not in any way be affected by the fluctuation of the exchange rate. It is she who could control international markets, with none able to control her currency.