Political theology as an organization of justification in the political thought of religious

Introduction: From the theoretical standpoint of political theology rather than political philosophy, this article examines the theological system of some religious intellectuals in justifying and reconstructing their political thought. and It attempts to tries to show that - as a global and international example -due to secular thinking, In political thought or opposition to it, How is their theological organization structured.

Methods: The research method in this study is a qualitative documentary method, appropriate to the subject. Also, using the discourse analysis method of Laclau and Mouffe, which considers the temporary fixation of meaning in signs as a result of opposition and hostility, and Van Dyck's critical discourse analysis and the understanding and extraction of the invoked signifier and the rejected signifier (highlighted and marginalized), we examine the theological discourse of these religious intellectuals.

Results and Discussion: The research findings show that the type of encounter with the issue of "resurrection and the hereafter" and the type of conceptualization of the relationship between "man and God" support the theological organization of some religious intellectuals (Soroush and the late Bazargan) to justify their political thought; That is, with the secularization of thought, resurrection and the hereafter are included in the context of religious thought and become prominent in their organization of religious knowledge, and the design of religion as an organization regulating collective life in the world is marginalized.

Also, with the non-secularization of thought (Shariati), the resurrection and the afterlife become thin and go to the sidelines, and the potential of religion in managing the world is highlighted, and in a sense, a religion that cannot do anything for the world of humans is not useful for the afterlife either. Also, in secular thought, the relationship between man and God is formulated in a specific way.

Conclusion: Religious intellectualism, in contrast to other intellectual and epistemological groups, cannot be indifferent to modern life and its epistemological and institutional products, like traditionalists, nor can it abandon its religious origins, like non-religious intellectuals and thinkers. Therefore, in a continuous process over the past century, it has attempted to provide a narrative and interpretation of religion that is compatible with modern thought and its products. If modern empirical science has become a general reference as a product of modern thought and experience and cannot be ignored, then a reading and knowledge of religion must be presented that is compatible with modern science. And if the ability and richness of a thought in the modern era is its practical nature in carrying out social changes (ideology), then there must be a view of religion that has this ability and is introduced as an ideology. If the characteristic and advantage of modern experience and thought is in democratic collective life, a plan of religion must be presented that is democratic. This list can be continued regarding human rights, the issue of women, freedom of speech, and the like. Religious intellectuals seek to modernize religion and religious society, and at the same time, they want to remain within the circle of religious knowledge and religious stance. Therefore, by constantly reviewing the organization of their religious thought, for example, by highlighting and marginalizing some religious components, they try to eliminate or reduce the conflicts between religious thought and modernity, and to combine being religious and being modern. Sometimes this path leads to changes and revisions in the deepest layers of religious knowledge, that is, their theological system, and these changes are so profound that they find a fundamental distance from other religious thinkers and, according to some of them, they are removed from the category of religiosity.