[2] To The Independent he commented that the sculpture's "literal meaning" was "that all inspirational belief systems derive from a single source, represented by the glass, from which all utterances are drawn on a vast number of now numerate levels".

[3] The scholar of religion S. Brent Plate thought that there was an "interpretative ambiguity" to the work, in that the viewer is left to decide for themselves whether it is "critical or accepting" of the religious traditions featured.

[1] In the years after it had been made, the work was part of a series that had gone on display at Oxford's Museum of Modern Art, London's Lisson gallery and at the Venice Biennale.

[2] The Tate Britain gallery in London held a retrospective of the artist's work, John Latham in Focus, between September 2005 and February 2006.

[4] In the wake of the 7 July 2005 bombings on the London transport system, carried out by Islamic militants, Tate Britain made the decision not to include God is Great (no.

[3] Deuchar added that it was "a very difficult decision, but we made it due to the exceptional circumstances of this summer and in the light of opinions that we value regarding religious sensitivities.

"[6] The Tate had contacted Islamic scholars who had stated that the work could be seen as an abuse of the Quran,[3] although the gallery had not consulted either the Metropolitan Police or the Muslim Council of Britain before making their decision.

[5] The civil rights advocacy group Liberty also criticised the gallery's decision; its director, Shami Chakrabarti, expressed concern at the "signal this sends at a time when we see free speech quite significantly under threat" in Britain.

[6] The Council also stated that it had wished that the Tate had consulted them before making the decision, adding that "sometimes presumptions are incorrectly made about what is unacceptable to Muslims and this can be counter-productive.

[10] He opposed the Tate's decision to remove the artwork from display, suggesting that the possibility of the sculpture being damaged was minimal, the threat to gallery visitors "exceptionally unlikely", and that if needed, additional security could have been employed.