Firstly, he is an historian of medieval Islam. Secondly, the book you cite is primarily about the Ottoman Empire and Turkey, and almost all of its sources are Turkish. Its fine as a kind of a popular/speculative history, but it is flawed in various respects and not-definitive. In other words, it has some ideas to think about and argue over, but I wouldn't regard it definivetly by any means.
Secondly, as to the point about colonialism/post-colonialsim. I don't think what Cole is saying is that this dynamic is a direct grudge with Norway or Denmark. He is saying rather that Norway and Denmark are merely symbols in this case for a large set of grudges and narratives that have little to do with these specific countries, per se. He is also saying that in many ways, the outward and violent manifestations vis-a-vis the cartoon occurred in these specific countries because of a particular set of internal political and social instabilities and tensions within certain societies. Norway and Denmark are epiphenomenal and almost incidental here.
As I said, I don't read him uncritically at all; he's a fave of the neo-cons and adviser to the Bush administration. But he's also extremely competent, as even his opponents grudgingly admit. And it's not exceptional for area specialists to dislike their subject of study. The Sovietologists did as well; and their analyses were often sound.
That said, his earlier books are better, but I recommend this one for its accessibility, with the stated reservations.
About the other thingy - Denmark and Norway as symbols - you are probably right.
(Comment deleted and reposted due to humiliating grammatical errors...) The world's northernmost desert wind.
