The Ruling on Checks in Currency Exchange

Question:
The other point is: what is the permissible legal form of this sale, especially since he pays a sum of money and receives a check from the bank in exchange?

Answer:
We clarified the form and said that it is obligatory for him to pay the money he has with him and receive its equivalent in the other currency, so that the exchange takes place between them in the meeting. This is a necessity.
As for the check, it is a matter of great difficulty. What I see, and this is the default ruling, is that it does not take the place of money, because it is not money in itself.
And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said , , hand to hand, meaning the two currencies, meaning the two currencies: one cannot be money and the other a substitute like a paper or a bond or something; it must be money, money paid by the buyer and money paid by the seller. This is the default ruling, and it is by this that the obligation is discharged. Even if some contemporary scholars have issued a ruling that the check takes the place of the money written on it, this requires evidence. This is a departure from the default ruling and requires evidence, and there is no clear evidence in this issue. Yes.