REFUTING THE AMERICAN WAR ON TERROR AND THE ‘CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS’ NARRATIVES: H. M. NAQVI’S HOME BOY

Abstract

This study probes H. M. Naqvi’s Home Boy as a rebutal to the rhetoric of American War on Terror and its antecedent intellectual foundation, ‘The Clash of Civilizations’ narrative presented by Samuel Huntington. The American War on Terror narrative has diffused into politics, laws and American culture industry in post- 9/11 context. Consequently, Muslim identity and Islam as a religion are connected with criminality, terrorism and security threat for America. This study uses Khalid A. Beydoun’s American Islamophobia: Understanding the Roots and Rise of Fear to explain the anti-Muslim energy of the American polity towards Muslims in post-9/11 America through Naqvi’s Home Boy. The treatment of the American Muslims by the FBI and the enactment of laws such as the PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act are the outcome of the longstanding American Islamophobia. The treatment met out to three Pakistanis, renaissance men, known as metrostanis in Naqvi’s Home Boy reflects American structural Islamophobia. Muslims become victims of the American state terrorism in Naqvi’s Home Boy.  Furthermore, Naqvi traces the origin of modern terrorism to Europe, the killing of Archduke Ferdinand by the Serbian nationalist organization.  Consequently, Naqvi reverses the trope of Muslims as terrorists and Islam as religion connected with terrorism through Home Boy. In addition, Naqvi dismantles ‘the clash of Civilizations’ narrative through the contribution of these metrostanis – by extension of Muslim immigrants – to the American Banking system, Academy, pop cultture and horticulture. Naqvi rebuts the image of Muslim immigrants as trojon horse by presenting them glue between Islam and the West. The study uses close reading supplemented by a historicist approach for the textual anlysis of Naqvi’s Home Boy. The study suggests going beyond ‘the Clash of Civilzations’ thinking dividing the world on tribalist lines. We need neither the clash nor the dialogue of civilizations narrative but an end to civilizational thinking as Dabashi suggests.