Arthur Rimbaud spoke about the “bastard wisdom of Koran” (sagesse bâtarde du Coran; see Une Saison en Enfer), and his later fatalism maybe casts some light upon his own adventure; he doesn’t seem to have indeed understood how a genuine offspring is born. Koran is not a bastard wisdom, not only because it is not a wisdom, but also and mainly because it has no parents at all. Koran was constructed, it is a product of the laboratory, without real spiritual roots.
Koran has denial in the place of a heart, since it despises the very ‘elements’ of its construction, the Old and the New Testament. Spyrido Zambelius is accurate when he speaks about Koran as “an undigested, unintegrated mixture of the Old and the New Testament, a monstrous mixture of Judaism and Christianity, decorated with fictitious tales, that please or surprise the imagination of semi-wild peoples, while from the start to the end it emits political rage and religious frenzy” (see Zambelius, Byzantine Studies, Athens 1857, pp. 169-70).
Manuel II Palaeologus writes that peoples who followed Islam “were deceived and forced by Mohammed, who promised them victory against Christians (cf. Manuel Palaeologus, Epitaph to his brother Theodorus Palaeologus, PG 156.220). Ostrogorsky (Byzantine History) writes that “Mohammed [was not a prophetic but a political figure, he] was creating the foundations of a religious and political union of Arabs [i.e., of a religious union simply as a means to the political unity and expansion]. His work, although spiritually poor and underdeveloped, contained a primitive urge and huge dynamism.”
As a fictitious and treacherous power, to the degree that it influences islamic peoples, Koran can not but lead them to an ever greater spiritual decay. No matter how greatly was islamism influenced sometime by hellenism (Greek science in particular, and some superficial neoplatonic elements), how great a spirituality could have ever chosen to build upon the unnatural foundation of Koran? From Koran one can expect what one expects from any spiritual poison: whatever good might happen in islamic peoples, it happens “rather in spite of their creed than because of it“.
The very fact that islamic peoples kept this ‘religion’ until today, unable to understand how fake it is, proves that chances for a real spiritual growth practically equal zero.
What other example could be more characteristic than what happened with Constantinople?
Six centuries after its fall, Constantinople is still known to the world and admired as a Byzantine city!, the City, while Islam proved unable to make with her anything whatever matching (to any degree) the history of Byzantium.
If the Ecumenical Patriarchate was not there until today, Constantinople would have been nothing more than an overcrowded turkish habitation. They thought they grasped the greatest treasure of all, ignoring that real treasures are not of space and time, where they only leave some traces, quickly disappearing from the eyes of unholy people.