Slavoj Žižek attacks the followers of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria in The New York Times today. They are a disgrace to “true” fundamentalism, he argues. As an example of fundamentalism at its truest, he takes the Buddhists. They do not condemn anyone. What is more, they let others discover the true path by themselves. The passionate intensity of the ISIS followers only bears witness to the lack of true conviction on their part. This is the proof that their fundamentalism is actually false. Although this is convincing enough as it stands, I wonder why Žižek does not follow the Buddhist example of his own? Why does he condemn the ISIS followers? Why does he not let them discover the true path by themselves? By doing this he only shows that he does not take his own argument seriously enough. That is, he is not a true fundamentalist, either. His argument against ISIS is thus suspect. Of course, the same can be said about my own argument against Žižek’s, but there is a fundamental difference between us. To wit, I have never boasted of my true fundamentalism in the first place. Buddhists are loath of boasting, too.