My seller assumed that the coin below represents Saladin as a knight on a horse. I told him that in principle, it was prohibited to show images or portraits of persons on Islamic coins. One could only read letters or verses of the Koran. Anyway we can never tell for sure. It dates back to almost nine centuries. The coin weighs 3.45 g. It looks better at hand and I didn't clean it yet.
I have seen exceptions to the "no image" on Islamic coins rule. I just did a vcoins search and found Islamic coins with lions, eg: https://www.vcoins.com/en/stores/da..._11681233_ae_dirham_irbil/575101/Default.aspx I don't know enough about this type of coinage to tell you why some Islamic coins have images, but most don't. There's probably someone who can enlighten us here in CT.
In the first place, the strictest prohibition concerns the depicting of God. After that, Mohammed and other prophets and holy figures (shahs and caliphs) are never to be depicted. And God IS never depicted. Mohammed only in the rarest occasions. I don't know if Saladin is depicted on this coin, it could well be just a horseman. But about objects and animals currents differ. Especially Sunni believers are not so strict. But there have been waves of stricter and lesser prohibition. Remember, other faiths have comparable taboos. In the Byzantine world, iconoclasm was rife in the 8th and 9th century. Protestants demolished Catholic statues in the 16th. Those wars of the mind cost many lives, and they were not fought for nothing. The Beeldenstorm in the Netherlands (about 1566) was about oppression, and about misappropriation of riches by the Catholic Church, when the poor received nothing. There are many Islamic coins depicting objects, animals or persons. The first Islamic coins were imitations of Byzantine or Sassanid coins with portraits, crosses and fire altars. After the reform of Islamic coinage (end of the 7th century AD) the strictly Arab text-only silver and gold coins were installed. But on the copper coins often animals were depicted. In the periphery of the Islamic countries pictorial imitations were still struck in the 10th century. The percentage of pictorial coins in the early stages of Islam, say, between 700 AD and 1000 AD, was maybe 5 %. Meanwhile, a trend of strict banning of pictures won in Islam, as you may study here in Wikipedia, the article called Aniconism. But some peoples like the Turkish overlords of Asia Minor, the Zengids and Artuqids, and also Saladin's Ayyubids, were not so strict and commissioned large bronze coins of which a part was pictorial, often astrologically influenced. The Seljuqs issued coins with a lion, maybe also with an astrological background. Horsemen are not unusual, and in Afghanistan many different bronze coins with animals were issued. And then there are modern coins, with many, many heads of state depicted.
As an illustration, here's a Seljuq coin of about 1200 AD (596 AH), issued by Rukn al Din Suleiman, a bit like your type. But it sure is not a picture of Saladin! It measures 30 mm and weighs 7,97 gr.
An interesting exception is from Kaykhusraw II, Seljuqs of Rum, 1237–1246 AD who was married to a Georgian Christian represented on coins as the sun over the lion which represented the Sultan. As I recall the story, she later converted to Islam and the coins reverted to just text.
Actually, for most centuries after the death of Mohammad, it was ok to depict images of Mohammad. In fact, the Koran does not prohibit depicting Mohammad, and although there was some discussion regarding whether Muslims should or should not depict Mohammad, there is plenty of Islamic art depicting Mohammad. This whole outrage at the image of Mohammad to the point of violence is nothing but a modern invention of radical hate preachers of the 20th century and 21st century. Look at some of the Islamic depictions of Mohammad here on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad
There are some ambiguous early coins which may or may not have been intended to depict Muhammad. This first coin dates from the mid- to late 7th century and belongs to the Arab pseudo-Byzantine class, imitating Constans II. The figure's right arm (on our left) which normally is wrapped around a long cross has been misunderstood by the engraver as the name محمد "Muhammad", though crosses are still found elsewhere on the coin: This next coin, struck at Iliya Filastin (Jerusalem) c. AD 693-697 and belonging to the Arab-Byzantine standing caliph class, depicts an image of a caliph in Arab dress and removed of all Christian symbolism, probably intended as 'Abd al-Malik, the caliph under whom the coin was struck. However, instead of naming 'Abd al-Malik as do the other standing caliph coins, the legend surrounding the figure reads "Muhammad the apostle of Allah". This phrase is part of the kalima or Mulism profession of faith and appears in some location on nearly all Islamic coins. So here, is it intended to label the figure as Muhammad or is that association merely coincidental? Shortly after this second coin was struck, 'Abd al-Malik reformed the coinage in accordance with an interpretation of Islamic law which prohibits the depiction of any living thing (including Muhammad; cf. the OT prohibition of "graven images") and from that point onward (with exceptions such as the Turcoman figural bronzes), the majority of Islamic coins have been purely inscriptional and Islamic art in general has concentrated on calligraphy rather than graphic representation.
To me, on the first coin the thing left still looks more like Muhammad than like a cross with an arm. The second figure looks like an imitation of the first, but better drawn. The lettering on the left is rather differently engraved from that on the right.
