Comment Even if I don't know Arabic and I am not religious (no pictures are allowed from Allah), this image of an abstract mighty God against a small human: just wonderful. --Foroa17:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would be interested to hear what others think about this type of imaginative scope, as the scopes we have had so far have been strictly descriptive. I question whether it would be realistically useful as a starting point for a user wanting to search the VI repository. --MichaelMaggs15:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I stick to my first opinion, here transcribed. From that position the woman can't read anything, maybe she is just looking at some detail in the wall. So, the supposition that she is staring in awe before the symbol of her god might be nothing more than our mental construction. Also, I wonder if a similar image with the English words "God" (or "Jupiter" or "Osiris") would trigger the same reaction from a western (non-muslim) person. I don't think that the symbol of some particular religion should be recognized as a valuable image per se. What about all the others? And the national flags? If this image is promoted to VI we are opening a dangerous precendent. For me religion is a strict personnal matter. -- Alvesgaspar17:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a nominator, I disagree with all the arguments above but this is not the place to discuss it. For me Valued Images cover "values". --Foroa07:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The stated scope is just too broad to be meaningfull, as different religions have a very varied view on the relationship between man and god. Why wouldn't Image:The Creation of Adam.jpg for Christians or Image:Puja to the goddess.jpg for Hindus illustrate a comparable concept? For a scope that stated “Little human versus Islamic God” or simply “Man and God in Islam”, the picture would be much more valuable. -- Hk kng15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In the test review phase the scope was "Allah", which I found very concise and adequate (and supported). The current scope is IMO a little bit too dependent on the values of the individual user, thus making it subjective. However, all the reviews here show it is an interesting and strong image. Otherwise it would not attract so many comments. -- Slaunger19:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
