The Cartoons That Shook the World

by Jytte Klausen

On September 30, 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published twelve cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Five months later, thousands of Muslims inundated the newspaper with outpourings of anger and grief by phone, email, and fax; from Asia to Europe Muslims took to the streets in protest. This book is the first comprehensive investigation of the conflict that aroused impassioned debates around the world on freedom of expression, blasphemy, and the nature of modern Islam. Jytte Klausen interviewed politicians in the Middle East, Muslim leaders in Europe, the Danish editors and cartoonists, and the Danish imam who started the controversy. Following the winding trail of protests across the world, she deconstructs the arguments and motives that drove the escalation of the increasingly globalized conflict. She concludes that the Muslim reaction to the cartoons was not―as was commonly assumed―a spontaneous emotional reaction arising out of the clash of Western and Islamic civilizations. Rather it was orchestrated, first by those with vested interests in elections in Denmark and Egypt, and later by Islamic extremists seeking to destabilize governments in Pakistan, Lebanon, Libya, and Nigeria. Klausen shows how the cartoon crisis was, therefore, ultimately a political conflict rather than a colossal cultural misunderstanding.

Genres: Banned Books, Religion, Politics

230 pages, Hardcover

First published October 13, 2009

Reviews

[Arjun Mishra · Rating 3 out of 5]

The historical and scholarly analysis by Klausen, a Dane, is quite rich and useful. The main thesis is that the heated reactions to the Jyllands-Posten cartoons were not spontaneous "ordinary" protests, but rather that they were engineered by electoral politics in Egypt, North Africa, and across Muslim countries to give a certain party an edge. The thesis is compelling, though slightly dismissive of the organic protests that arose in certain countries.

Unfortunately, the academic and keen analysis made in the book are overshadowed by Yale University's pusillanimity in deciding not to publish illustrations and cartoons. It is shameful. Yale should relinquish itself from any notions of upholding free speech. Accordingly, I believe that FIRE has chided them and blacklisted the university as one of the worst offenders of free speech. The book discusses art. The art is necessary to see and understand. Minus the egregiously offensive cartoon, the cartoons are laughably not offensive and provide an insightful commentary into the status of Denmark and its multicultural situation. Hitchens has already rebuked Yale, so there is nothing I can say in addition other than I am disappointed and it takes away from the book.

[Bill · Rating 1 out of 5]

Though this is the definitive story of the Muhammad cartoon brouhaha, the fact that the cartoons were not included in the book (in fact they were taken out, censored) makes the book irrelevant, especially to future historians.

I expect more from Yale University Press

[Chris Mallows]

Committed to free expression? What nonsense
Yale has acted cravenly over images of Muhammad
Oliver Kamm The Times London 28-Sept-09
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comm...

A Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, published 12 cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in September 2005. This seemingly innocuous decision preceded worldwide protests, death threats, trade boycotts and attacks on Danish embassies.
An outstanding scholarly account of these events is published this week, entitled The Cartoons that Shook the World by Jytte Klausen, a Danish academic in the US. Klausen dissects the motives of the main actors and illuminates debates over free speech and the place of religion in Western societies. It’s a murky business, by which, she says, “protests developed from small-scale local demonstrations to global uproar only to subside without a proper conclusion”.
Yet while there has been no conclusion, there has been change and decay. The controversy spurred an argument that would defend the principle of free speech while deploring the failure to exercise it sensitively. “We believe freedom of the press entails responsibility and discretion, and should respect the beliefs and tenets of all religions,” declared the United Nations after Danish diplomatic missions were torched.
That principle is moderate, balanced and pernicious. The idea that people’s beliefs, merely by being deeply held, merit respect is grotesque. A constitutional society upholds freedom of speech and thought: it has no interest in its citizens’ feelings. If it sought to protect sensibilities, there would be no limit to the abridgements of freedom that the principle would justify.
Klausen’s book demonstrates how far liberal principle has been compromised, but it has also become an exhibit in its own right. In July the publisher, Yale University Press, told Klausen that it would not agree to publish the cartoons. It would further not publish any other illustrations of the Prophet, for fear of eliciting violent protest.
Yale took the decision after consulting advisers, and sought Klausen’s assent to a joint statement and confidentiality agreement. She declined. The book thus carries separate prefaces, by publisher and author, respectively justifying and noting an act of self-censorship for which it is difficult to find any parallel in recent publishing history. A book about visual images lacks not only the pictures in question but any point of comparison.
Yale sententiously describes itself as “an institution deeply committed to free expression”. That is nonsense: it is an institution deeply committed to self-preservation. Yale’s behaviour is emblematic of something corrosive in the culture.
Cravenness is anyone’s prerogative. Dressing it up as high principle is contemptible.

[Daniel Simmons · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a very sane and thankfully restrained overview and analysis of the Danish cartoons kerfluffle of 2005-06 -- events which found a more tragic echo in the killings at "Charlie Hebdo" earlier this month. Klausen even-handedly interviews people on all sides of this story: the editors at the Jyllands Posten newspaper, the cartoonists whose work sparked such outrage in the Muslim world, imams and Muslim leaders in Denmark and elsewhere, politicians and ministers who weighed in on (or absented themselves from) the firestorm that followed, and members of the general public (Muslim and non-Muslim). What emerges is not the Manichaean "clash of civilizations" narrative that the international media would have you swallow, but a startlingly complex web of motivations, misinterpretations, and political agendas. NB: One glaring fault of the book is that it fails to include any of the controversial cartoons (an act of academic cowardice, it seems, on the part of Yale University Press). It could also have used a proofreader with a finer-toothed comb, since I found errors in the chronology (on p. 45, for example, "March 2005" should be "March 2006") and p. 101 mentions "the Muslin Brotherhood" (watch out for those sinister politicized wearers of cotton, everyone!), among other mistakes.

[J · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really interesting lays everything out so that it's clear neither side had any clue where the other was coming from. Especially enjoyed Chapter 6, Muslim Iconoclasm and Christian Blasphemy, which explored the reality of images in Islam. Yale University Press loses points for declining to print both the cartoons and historical images depicting Islam and Muhammad. Check out "Muhammad: The Banned Images" by Gary Hull (Voltaire Press), though; it has all of it.

[Neil Crocker · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting background on those Danish newspaper cartoons that at least some Muslims did not appreciate. If you want to know the story, this is a good read. I found the whole thing a little weird and dull. BTW, he publisher cut the cartoons from the manuscript, so if you want to see them, you need to find them online.

[Nichole · Rating 1 out of 5]

I finally had to let this book go. It was moving too slow for me right now and I had to truly force myself to read it, so I'll keep it in my library for perhaps another day.

I had hoped to use information from this book for my unit on political cartoons, satire, and parody, but it's just not going to work for me this year.