In 2005, the multi-faceted relationship between Islam and European societies burst into view with the “Danish cartoon controversy,” or, in the title of Jytte Klausen's book, “The Cartoons that Shook the World.” The images created an international crisis between what was perceived as Western ideas of free speech and “traditional” non-modern Muslims. Klausen documents and chronicles the crisis at every stage, and addresses not only the debates surrounding the cartoons themselves, but also the various perceptions and misperceptions held by Europeans about Islam, and by many Muslim opinions about the treatment of Islam in Europe. (Klausen's book does not include the images, in response to the publisher's request. Although the author thinks that the book would be more complete with the images, I disagree, and I find the book quite comprehensive in detailing the events, without the need to republish such controversial images.)

The book is engaging, and provides a clear chronology of the events that led to the crisis. It will be useful to scholars and students of Islamic Studies as well as Middle Eastern and European Studies. Those who think that Huntington's “Clash of Civilizations” hypothesis explains this situation will be disappointed, as Klausen successfully shows that the crisis was not a cultural clash, but rather the result of a series of bad decisions on the part of the editorial board of Jyllands-Posten (the Danish newspaper at the center of the controversy), the Danish state, Danish imams, and those Muslim and Arab officials who took exaggerated claims at face value. The book clearly shows that the crisis was the product of a series of misguided decisions at every stage.

Initially, the images did not create an international row; but their subsequent reproduction in other newspapers and magazines around the world laid the groundwork for a clash. To make things worse, the Danish newspaper defended its right to publish the images in any light it saw fit, while governments of predominantly Muslim societies used the crisis to pressure the Danish state for an apology. Klausen, who is originally from Denmark, brings her knowledge of European cultural references to bear in understanding the controversy aroused by the cartoons. She explains that “[i]n northern Europe… rudeness is sometimes regarded as authenticity and is even seen as a civic virtue when directed against pompous and arrogant figures of authority” (18). This is quite significant to the crisis, as Jyllands-Posten referred to many Muslim imams in Denmark as “self-important imams” and “mad mullahs” who responded to media's portrayal of Islam with “sickly oversensitivity.”

Further, Klausen points out that the laws in Europe are at times unclear and in flux, yet “[i]n contrast to the United States, Europe has a copious catalogue of hate speech laws, prohibitions on holocaust denial, bans on incitements to political violence or hatred, and the old blasphemy laws” (146). Even more problematic is the issue of non-Muslims defaming Muhammad in the name of freedom of speech, which (interestingly enough) has limitations in Denmark, as there are laws that restrict criticism of non-Muslim religious authorities.

After tracing the chronology of events, interviewing many of the principal figures involved in the controversy, and providing a clear picture of the crisis, Klausen concludes by suggesting that what happened was more a political crisis than a cultural one. I agree with the author; yet the fact that Jyllands-Posten's editorial board decided to publish the images over the objections of key Danish imams created the appearance of such a culture clash, especially when Jyllands-Posten marketed the images as an expression of freedom of speech to which the “sickly sensitive mad mullahs” would surely object. Yet by the same token, had imams in Denmark responded differently, instead of lobbying Arab and states of predominantly Muslim populations to facilitate the mobilization of their people against the cartoons, Denmark, and other Scandinavian countries, more than 200 people would likely not have lost their lives.

Clearly, some imams from Denmark exaggerated — adding other cartoons that were never published in a dossier that was circulated to political leaders around the world to inflame the situation and create a political crisis — and did not explain the cartoons in their cultural contexts. Klausen suggests that Danes understood some of the images in different contexts than non-Europeans. While this may be true, very little was done to explain this issue in the media or by politicians. Without a doubt, and as elaborated in detail by Klausen, the crisis should have never happened. Jyllands-Posten could have decided not to publish the images, but it seems that they saw all Muslims to be the same — anti-modern, ultra-sensitive, prone to exaggeration — reflecting the sort of racist views toward Muslims that exists in many Western media outlets.

Five years to the day after the publication of the images in Jyllands-Posten, the images were reproduced on September 30, 2010, in an attempt to support the freedom of the press. In May of 2010, the “Draw Muhammad Day” was held in virtual space, where artists were called upon to “defend their right to draw Muhammad in any light they saw accurate.” Liberties seem to have fallen hostage to a framework of racism and generalizations. Although Samuel Huntington's hypothesis does not explain the crisis, it seems that certain positions and actions can lead to a false impression of a cultural clash. When these events are thought of as a “cultural clash,” Huntington's hypothesis becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. The Cartoons that Shook the World gives us a glimpse into how cultural differences can be easily manipulated to advance political interests.