THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN BILATERALLY AND UNILATERALLY BINDING PROMISES IN CURRENCY TRADING, IN TERMS OF THE SHARIA LAW.

This study aims to investigate the meaning of Standard No. 1 in the AAOIFI Sharia Standards regarding the distinction between the binding promises of the two parties to currency trading and the binding promise from one party in it, and the extent of currency trading's legality considering Sharia's objectives. The paper relies on the classical and contemporary literature on AAOIFI Standard No. 1 and currency exchange and trading. It uses both inductive and descriptive-analytical methods and adopts a qualitative content analysis method to describe the elements that make up the framework. The difference between a binding promise between two parties and a binding promise to exchange currency by one party is incorrect, because there is no real difference between the two. Owing to economics and Islamic law, "trading in currencies" and "exchanging currencies" do not have the same value. Most currency trade is speculation, which leaves the real economy open to the hopes and greed of a large group of speculators. The study is unique because it is one of the first to try to highlight the legal difference between a binding promise from a single party and multiple parties, evaluate it, and propose a new way to explain the difference that meets the goals of Sharia in currency trading. The researchers suggest framing the issue of difference as follows: in terms of what is illegal, there is no difference between promise binding in currency trading and promise binding on only one side. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]