and if each of them brings what he has, then it is all the more valid, since it is now an exchange of one tangible item for another.

The sound view is that it is valid in this case, as well as when they conduct the currency exchange with both sums as liabilities. This is because the apparent meaning of the hadith of Ibn Umar—may Allah be pleased with him and his father—is: “We used to sell camels for dirhams and take dinars, and sell them for dinars and take dirhams” (1). The apparent meaning of the hadith is that the dirhams are not present, while the exchange contract is concluded on the basis of them. Moreover, reciprocal possession before the two parties separate has taken place: the dirhams are now owed by you, and the dinars are now owed by me; then we part with nothing outstanding between us. Therefore, the sound view is that it is valid and does not fall under the heading of selling debt for debt. Rather, the prohibited form of selling debt for debt is what has previously been illustrated and discussed.

Issue: If a person buys items from a grocery store and settles his account every month, then, when the month ends, he asks, “How much do I owe?” The shopkeeper replies, “Such-and-such,” and he pays him without designating the dirhams at the time he hands them over, this is permissible. This supports the view that when two parties conduct a currency exchange with both sums as liabilities, and each of them has received what ultimately belongs to him, it is valid.