A question regarding the exchange of one currency for another with its transfer to another country.

The Shaykh : ... But when it was printed according to the custom of the state that issued it, it acquired a customary value, while its intrinsic value is gone; because you cannot use it as blank paper for writing. This customary value, for every state, corresponds to a specific ratio of gold held by that state for any note of any denomination. So when you come to exchange Jordanian dinars for Saudi riyals, or the currency of the United Arab Emirates, or foreign currency like dollars, or whatever other types there are, it is as if you are exchanging gold for gold, because they have no intrinsic value; their value is customary and conventional. And you all know that it is not permissible to exchange gold for gold except like for like and hand to hand, and this is absolutely impossible to achieve today.
The greatest proof of this today is that the dollar has risen, and tomorrow it falls. What does this mean? The currency is the same paper; it has no value except a customary value. This is part of the manipulation by the states that control the world; they raise their currency when it is in their interest to raise it, and they lower it—what do they lower? They lower its value when it is in their interest to lower it. Therefore, first: this exchange operation, which many people have been afflicted with, is not permissible. Second: a man working in an Islamic state whose currency is not the currency of his home country should not exchange from it except the amount of need only, so that he does not lose the salary he gathered with the sweat of his brow and the labor of his hands. As for sitting to trade in it first, and second, violating the law that allowed him to exchange a specific amount—may Allah guide you, I wish all laws were like this; because they restrict people from expanding in the exchange of paper currencies.
Have I clarified the issue?

The questioner : No, I did not understand.

The Shaykh : Bring it so we can see why?

The questioner : My question is, for example, let us take Libya as an example. It is permitted for a foreigner in Libya to transfer sixty percent of the currency, do you see? From his salary, he transfers sixty percent.

The Shaykh : You are repeating your question.

The questioner : Yes?

The Shaykh : You are repeating your question; I want to repeat my answer.

The questioner : But you did not clarify my question.

The Shaykh : How?

Another questioner : He tells you: Is it forbidden or lawful?

The Shaykh : I tell him: It is forbidden, not lawful, except the amount of dire necessity.

The questioner : I say: That is the one who takes a specific amount for transfer, meaning that one wants to transfer more than sixty percent—for example—he reaches twenty percent, do you see?

The Shaykh : If the entire transfer were permissible.

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Why is it like that? What did I say in my previous speech, is it permissible or not permissible?

Another questioner : It is not permissible.

The Shaykh : Okay, how ...?

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Be patient a little, please, be patient.

The questioner : No, I say: The person who transfers for him will take money on the currency.

The Shaykh : That is a second calamity, may Allah guide you.

Another questioner : ... .

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : My brother, what is built upon a defective foundation is defective; this is a second calamity.

The questioner : ... I want to present it.

The Shaykh : No, he did not know the first part until ... the second, may Allah guide you.

Another questioner : Now he is permitted to transfer sixty percent, and now he has currency available to him more than that, so he went—for example—gave me money from my money.

The Shaykh : Now, did you not take the answer? May Allah guide you.

Another questioner : And I took money for it ... .

The Shaykh : He wants to complete it! I gave you the answer; this is forbidden upon forbidden.

The questioner : O Shaykh, I mean, I want to send with such-and-such a person—for example—one hundred dinars to reach my father, so I give him ten dinars as a fee for delivering them, so ... it is the same issue.

The Shaykh : No, it is not the same issue.

The questioner : I mean, he transfers for me ... .

The Shaykh : No, it is not the same issue, why are you making it the same issue? It is a trick and going around in circles! Now, one person travels from there from Libya to here, do you want to give him a piece of paper to put in his pocket so that he can deliver it to your father? Do you give him a fee of ten dinars, for example? Do you give him ten dinars?

Another questioner : ... I mean, we are looking for the Islamic ruling.

The Shaykh : I gave you the Islamic ruling. You there give a fee for transferring what the law does not permit. Here, in the transport you are describing, does the law permit it or does it not permit it?

Another questioner : Okay, is this law ...?

The Shaykh : So why did you describe the issue?

Another questioner : Is this law unjust, or is it a correct law, for example, from an Islamic perspective?

The Shaykh : May Allah guide you, may Allah guide you, I gave you the answer—may Allah guide you—previously. I told you: I wish all laws were of this kind; because they restrict the expansion in exchange which is not permissible except to the extent of dire necessity. How can you say to me: the law is unjust? I wish laws were of this kind! Meaning, if a law came out: it is not permissible to sell gold for gold except like for like; would you be unjust? Meaning, it is in accordance with the Shari'ah. I wish laws were like this.

The questioner : How can it be in accordance with the Shari'ah when I work in a country and I want to transfer my money to my country? Is this contrary to the Shari'ah? I mean, I—for example—work—for example—... .

The Shaykh : Did you understand me? Did you understand, my brother?

The questioner : I understood.

The Shaykh : What did you understand from me; bring it so we can see?

The questioner : You said: Not permissible, or the law ... .

The Shaykh : I did not tell you: Not permissible and that's it, I did not tell you: Not permissible and that's it; I gave you a lecture! So what did you understand from me?

The questioner : You said that these laws are in accordance with the Shari'ah; so here is the research; I mean, are these laws truly in accordance with the Shari'ah?!

The Shaykh : But is that what I said?

The questioner : ... I mean, this is the essence of the topic.

The Shaykh : No, I do not want the essence, I want the lecture that I lectured in; you repeat it for me.

The questioner : You said: Not permissible; because of these laws.

The Shaykh : He is still repeating to me the word: Not permissible! Brother—without offense—the small child understands that I said: Not permissible, but the conscious, cultured young man like your story does not repeat the word; I said: Not permissible! If you went out now to the street, or to the road, or to the house, in a gathering, you said: The Shaykh said: Not permissible. He says to you: Why? Can you answer him?! In my name; can you answer him why? Or do you just tell him: The Shaykh said so?! We have returned to the problem of blind following (taqlid) that we complain of. You repeat to me why it is not permissible? Repeat to me the speech that we told you in clear Arabic; O people, the currency is not of intrinsic value, its value is conventional, and every note has a ratio of gold stored for it, so the issue returned ... but you took from me that it is not permissible, and all this detailed speech you threw to the winds!! May Allah forgive you!

The questioner : No, the problem ... we fall into the same speech that you said, I mean, the conviction with the same speech!

The Shaykh : What speech? What speech, my brother?

The questioner: Regarding ... .

The Shaykh : What speech, my dear?

The questioner : This is a dire necessity.

The Shaykh : Do not repeat it for me, repeat to me the speech that I mentioned to you, I understand that you understood from me that it is not permissible, here, and we signed in blank that you understood from me.

The questioner : I asked a question, and you said your answer to this question.
...

Another questioner : He wants to transfer all his money.

The Shaykh : The transfer is gambling, it is not permissible except to the extent of dire necessity.

Another questioner : ... on the countries outside?

The Shaykh : How?
The questioner: If it passes through the countries outside?

The questioner : What do they do?

The Shaykh : And if Allah wills you do not go, what does the calamity mean?

Another questioner : ... .

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : It becomes gold forbidden if you do not have a need, in addition to the fact that you want to commit a transaction of usury (riba), of course.
My brother, understand us and then speak, do not say: The Shaykh forbade, say: Why did he forbid?

The questioner : But we say: What do we do, I mean?

The Shaykh : I am looking, the hands are raised, everyone wants his answer, you want to waste our opportunity, repeat to me the speech ... leave the turn for someone else.
Please proceed.