This 651CE coin from Bishapur with the Arabic phrase "Bismillah" on it shows that there was an Arabian religious change in the leadership of the Persian Empire but which had no impact on Numismatics in, clearly therefore independent, Syria. The differences in currency corroborates the Shia narrative that Ali ruled the Persian Empire as an Imamate while the non-believing Umayyads ruled in Syria. The coin also confirms the Spiritual Shia view that depicting Ali's face has never been a problem for the real Quran-obedient community and Iconoclasm is really just a puritanical "Holier-than-thou" innovation. Retaining the depiction of the two Priests either side of an altar on the reverse of the coin shows that a kind of Mithraism was actually the religion of Ali and the Imamate's Quranic materials plagiarised by Uthman. But where is the word Mithras in the Quran? The only possible conclusion is that the religion Ali promoted was a form of Mithraism where the prophecies concerning Mithra as an Aeon of G-d are equated with those concerning the Messiah and that the community saw those prophesies fulfilled in Marym's son Ieso. In order to turn Mithreans into Noahites it would have been necessary, and therefore in the Jews' best interests, to promote the idea that a Jewish sage had fulfilled the Mithraic prophecies in a way which was considered compatible with Judaism. This is the only rational conclusion which can be derived from bringing together knowledge of the following factors together:
:01) The 651 Arab-Sassanian Coinage
:02) The Pseudo-Byzantine Coinage from 638 until Abdul Malik
:04) Sebeos's account
:05) Pope Martin I's defence
:06) The original Quranic materials
:07) The Spiritual Shia Narrative
:08) Extensive Knowledge of Judaism:09) The GospelsNativity:10) The concept of Jesus Patibilisin the Tripartite Gnostic Christ.From this conclusion we can then delve more deeply into the issue of who Mehmet was. It becomes clear that he was not attempting to establish a new religion but was a Proselyte attempting to assist his proto-Karaite Mullas in reforming an old along Noahite lines. Despite his Messianic name he did not consider himself to be the Messiah though outsiders were unable to distinguish between him and the Mithraic Messiah he promoted.
