Whenever Slavoj Zizek says something, it draws attention. Even those who reproach Zizek cannot remain indifferent to him.

The same happened when Zizek wrote an opinion piece for The New York Times on Sept. 3, titled "ISIS Is a Disgrace to True Fundamentalism," about the militants in the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS).

The article was discussed even by those who call him the Coldplay of critical Marxist psychoanalytical theory with an amusing reference to the pop group, and those who call him the clown-prince of post-postmodern philosophy.

Eventually, the article began to get attention from our intellectual environment as well after a one-month delay.

Why? I think the first reason is Zizek's starting by asking an unexpectedly basic question: "[A]re the terrorist fundamentalists really fundamentalists in the authentic sense of the term? Do they really believe? What they lack is a feature that is easy to discern in all authentic fundamentalists, from Tibetan Buddhists to the Amish in the United States – the absence of resentment and envy, the deep indifference towards the nonbelievers' way of life. If today's so-called fundamentalists really believe they have found their way to Truth, why should they feel threatened by nonbelievers. Why should they envy them?"

His answer to that question is as follows: "In contrast to true fundamentalists, the terrorist pseudo-fundamentalists are deeply bothered, intrigued and fascinated by the sinful life of the nonbelievers. One can feel that, in fighting the sinful other, they are fighting their own temptation. This is why the so-called fundamentalists of ISIS are a disgrace to true fundamentalism."

And that's not all. Slavoj Zizek subjected both ISIS's ideology and style of warfare to a fascinating psychoanalysis: "The problem is not cultural difference (their effort to preserve their identity), but the opposite fact that they already like us, that, secretly, they have already internalized our standards and measure themselves by them. Paradoxically, what the fundamentalists of ISIS and those like them really lack is precisely a dose of that true conviction of one's own superiority."

Judging by these words, we can say first and foremost that Zizek made great claims without thoroughly evaluating the concepts of Salafism and jihad.

It can be said that an analysis of fundamentalism with reference to the Amish sounds ridiculous, or that many fundamentalist movements have a paranoid terrorist mindset similar to that of ISIS.

Each criticism would be meaningful, but we also have to confess that Zizek touched on an interesting point, particularly from our point of view.

What should fundamentalism really mean for a religious person? Do ISIS and similar groups stand for Islamic fundamentalism? We must even ask: Isn't it time to stop giving in to the ways Western media outlets use radicalism and fundamentalism?

That's what I care about. We always take the easy way out. The West says "this is Islamic fundamentalism" and we accept it without a second thought.

However, being faithful is a fundamental choice anyway. One's practicing their beliefs intensely is already a radical lifestyle. There is not a more fundamentalist way than one's struggle against one's own self.

That's why we should reject the Western-imposed terminology, especially the word "Islamic," which is inserted into terms.

This terminology is used to scare Westerners by making them think, "Woe, does it happen this way when Islam gets radicalized?"

Again, let's confess that as we continue to use this terminology, the image of Islam gradually becomes composed only of politics. Muslim communities' cultural tradition and vision of civilization are forgotten and the "heart" of Muslim individuals falls off the agenda.

This is not an acceptable situation.

It's quite clear what ISIS is. ISIS is an army of evil governed by a very serious strategic mind. It is a terrorist organization in every sense of the word.

If we want to grasp this group within a political framework, we should directly look at the current clash of interests among hegemons of the world and the Middle East.