> Third, I'm forced to draw a rather unfortunate conclusion from this information. The assertion in this article seems deliberately calculated to undermine the historicity of Islam. There is a very sad and shortsighted movement in some corners of military scholarship right now that identifies Islam itself as the enemy, often beginning with Huntington's "clash of civilizations" narrative and ending with some examples of sheer lunacy, such as the recent article by a West Point associate professor arguing that legal human rights scholars are "an Islamist fifth column."

This is an article from a private news source about work done by academics at a private university, saying that the parchment MAY predate the accepted dates of Islam's founding. How do you get from that to military scholarship and an attack on Islam?

It's perfectly possible (leaving aside the deficiencies in the radiocarbon dating) to believe that the accepted dates are incorrect without condemning Islam in any way. People frequently discuss errors in the histories of other religions (e.g. the Old Testament has god giving an incorrect value of Pi) without condemning their followers in any way.

tl;dr: "undermine the historicity of Islam" != "condemning an entire religion"