This paper examines the use of early Islamic coins as symbols on present-day currencies issued by Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. I argue that the imprint of an historic Islamic coin lends legitimacy on several levels to the paper currency of these modern nations. Politically, the coin references the power and reach of the umma, in Umayyad dynastic terms, for modern inheritors of this shared political and religious culture. As for religion, it gives a stamp of approval to the Sunni interpretation of Islam. In addition, the coin's image echoes the reliability of precious metal as an economic base. Hence, I suggest that the coin of the umma on a nation's currency defines a metanumismatics, whereby currency displays an awareness of itself, its place in social interactions, and its exchange value in cultural, political, and economic terms. The coin's image also raises questions about the relationship between symbol and substance. The coin most frequently depicted is the gold dinar that the caliph, `Abd al-Malik b. Marwan [reg. 685-705 A.D.] minted in Damascus in 696 A.D. It is often referred to as the first true Arab-Islamic dinar. Previous practice imprinted the Islamic testimonial/shahada on existing coins with Byzantine and Sasanian iconography. By contrast, this coin demonstrated a break with the past, and independence from non-Muslim numismatic representations. In addition, this coin was the Umayyad caliph's response to challenges from rivals who fought with the metal, not of swords but of their own coins, namely, `Abdullah b. Zubayr and the Shurat/Kharijite leader, Qatari b. Fuja'a. `Abd al-Malik's dinar proclaims the triumph of the mainstream umma. Neither this historical moment nor this coin has been forgotten. The coin's image may in fact provide a hedge against money as a simulacrum, in Baudrillard's terms, since it reminds the user of precious metal's material value. But its presence also poses questions about convergences of imperialism and modernity, religious and secular models of governance, continuity with and disruptions of past structures, and issues as to who can claim to inherit the umma. I argue that the coin's image constitutes a unifying factor, where the shadow of the umma lends a deeper legitimacy socially and politically, just as the metal of its coins lends a firmer legitimacy economically. I bring together evidence from primary sources on Islamic history, secondary sources on history and numismatics, and literature theorizing money as a cultural construct.