Abstract Time has been the forgotten dimension in the debate on the post-secular, originated by the philosopher Jürgen Habermas in the Social Sciences two decades ago. This article proposes a study of post-secularity from the temporal dimension and concludes that it is possible to affirm that post-secularism is a way of colonialism by other means. The article also inquires into the capacity of the post-colonial approach to offer a critical reading of political religiosity that would include the underlying cultures of time. In response to this question, it explains the controversial nature of post-colonial thought with respect to this task. However, it argues that post-colonial and de-colonial perspectives are nonetheless useful for apprehending cultures of time among religious actors.

Salvo contadas excepciones, los teóricos de Relaciones Internacionales empiezan a reconocer las religiones como un factor explicativo de la política internacional contemporánea a partir del 11-S; un desafío para un cuerpo de conocimiento construido principalmente desde fundamentos moderno-seculares como el Estado, la soberanía, la identidad nacional o la racionalidad instrumental, entre otros. Por lo tanto, el propósito principal de este artículo es analizar las causas que han contribuido a hacer de las religiones uno de los silencios de la disciplina, para, posteriormente, reflexionar sobre los efectos reformadores o revolucionarios que una propuesta teórico-metodológica de aproximación a las religiones, más allá de las interpretaciones primordialistas o instrumentalistas, podría tener sobre los fundamentos teóricos de la disciplina.

Since 9/11, with few exceptions, the theorists of International Relations started to include religion into their explanations of international politics, which is an interesting challenge for a discipline built on modern and secular foundations such as the state, sovereignty, national identity or instrumental rationality. Therefore, the main purpose of this article is to explain the causes why religion has been until now a "silence" in the discipline. Following this explanation the article analyzes in depth whether the inclusion of religion in the explanations of International Relations beyond the primordialist and instrumentalist approaches needs a "reformist" or "revolutionary" change in the theoretical apparatus of the discipline.