Worlds oldest Koran carbon dated - predates Mohammed

I don't find this surprising...

When you read the Koran Jesus is mentioned highly 24 times and mohammod 4 times lowly,and the first part of the books teaching is opposite on second part do to the Catholic change of mind of Muslims and cut them off once they realized there error

The video doesn’t provide enough information to settle this question—although it should spark viewers into researching it a bit deeper, especially with Google making this a much easier task than I recall it once being. Two large issues come to mind:

Consonance with the text’s history: Few scholars credit the notion that a Quranic manuscript could predate Muhammad, most taking the view that the text’s original composition, by more than one author, took place at least 20 years after his death. Muhammad is well-documented in period sources outside the religion. None of these sources mention this religion, its followers, its prophet or military conflicts connected with its expansion before about 620 to 650 CE.

Carbon dating protocols: Each laboratory maintains its own standards. A carbon-14 test does not give the absolute calendar date when an archaeological artifact was made or a biological organism had lived. Rather, it gives what’s termed a “conventional radiocarbon age” for the sample. The CRA is affected mainly by the atmospheric concentration of 14C at the time when metabolic processes (which stop when organisms perish) deposit carbon in the sample, and to a lesser extent by matabolism’s tendency to sort carbon isotopes—12C, 13C and 14C—by weight, the lighter isotopes usually enriched in tissues, versus in the ambient environment from which an organism got the carbon, as food if animal, as CO2 in air if plant.

Because the flux of cosmic rays that form 14C in our atmosphere has varied over time, the CRA is nonlinear—and, derived from tree ring studies, not precisely known. Revisions have been made over the years, with no assurance the current scale is correct. In addition to the CRA’s inherent bias, sources of error in a sample include contamination by modern carbon, often C14 created in the above-ground nuclear blasts of the 1940s and ‘50s, but also plant roots, bacteria and fungi, or the soil a fingerprint or careless tool can introduce. In short, radiocarbon dates are approximate.

The University of Birmingham claims only that its manuscript dates very close to the time of Muhammad, perhaps with the animal whose hide was used for the parchment slaughtered during his lifetime. Here, we note that that the parchment’s manufacture could have occurred many years before it was written on. Scholars believe the Quranic text reached the form we have it today under the reign of Caliph Uthman, circa 650 CE.

The Beta Analytics web site offers a nice introduction to 14C dating.

Beta Analytics
www.radiocarbon.com/about-carbon-dating.htm

University of Birmingham’s Quran pages
www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/2015/07/quran-manuscript-22-07-15.aspx

Islam is simply an Arabic version of Judeo-Christianity

A lot of the comments in here try to relate Islam to some religion but if we wanted to take any religion and relate it to all religions, I am sure you would find a dimension of the religion that can be found in every religion. Its arrogant to write a statement when you haven't at least investigated on the religion with more than idle chatter.

The Catholic contempt towards Muslims is very ancient and severe. Why would they deliberately give birth to a rival system?

I'm very appreciate your explanations, Amenemhad! Thank you!

Your explainings have always high-scientific argumentations. So, it's really nice to me being able to speak with you!

Ok, now some stuff that I wanted to say. Honestly, I don't know what to say about possibilities of muslims' addings to Koran. You know, I think that we can maintain that such addings are rather good than bad? I'm sure in it just because I don't believe in individual character of Jews or Christian writings. I know I can't argue atout this very strongly, so I need to be prepared for some answers. 
Why do I think that "The Old testament" and "The New Testaments" are both not unique? I'll give just a few examples: K. Jung "Job" (about book of Job) and works dedicated to 'interpolations in the new testament'. So, I think it would be enough.

So, what premisess do I hold? I think that the notion of muslims' god (aka 'Allah') is the wonderful examle regardless of redactions and consultings. It doesn't matter, as for me, at what circumstances have been happening this because I don't care about history how Koran has been created. I don't even think that our languages are pretty unique - and this point of view meets some upholdings thesises, cause we use no absolutely unique languages.

But, as like Peter Strawson's theory 'bout individual objects ('individual ontological statuses of objects'), who taught that there were no strong possibilities to get some pretty unique examples of the one element or object because of not-equivalent charachteristics of such objects... What do I mean? I want to say that even if the notion of muslims' god is unique (and I think so) it's not a barrier, but rather better position for us to cooperate with them.

I hold the view that we all (all the people) are alike, but surely have many similarities. And our differencies are higher than our similarities in the 'spirit', 'individual' and 'personality' statuses, but our differencies are lower than our similarities in the common conditions, in our language using, in our looks, in our habits etc. 

I don't know how crearly I have explained my point of view. I hope it is understandable...

Thank you, again! And forgive me my poor Engleash... (^_^)