I think the issue with this argument is that the object of investigation (the crucifixion of Jesus Christ) is underdetermined. The available is insufficient to identify which belief one should hold about that evidence. Was Jesus "lifted" from his body and the body on the cross was replaced by someone else? Almost certainly not. But is this a conclusion we derive from the available evidence? I don't think so. This is what is known as the "epistemological problem of the indeterminacy of data to theory". To quote Nietzsche, "facts are precisely what there are not; only interpretations". Islamic scholars have constructed elaborate accounts of, to use the phrase from Muhammad Shafi Deobandi's commentary on the Qur'an, "how the early Christ followers were deluded". And I think that any attempt to explain away the Muslim interpretation of events, purely on the basis of evidence, is sufficient to undercut the Christian interpretation. For as soon as we start basing questions of faith and revelation on evidence, we can either dismiss it all or go "in for a penny,in for a pound". And since we obviously do not want to dismiss the own beliefs confessed in our creeds, I think the only thing we can do is agree that these questions are not a matter of evidence, but a matter of faith. And whether or not Jesus was crucified or simply gave off the illusion of being crucified, is not a historical question. God's lifting of Jesus and subsequent replacement is not something that can be proved false on historical grounds. Same as the Christian belief that Jesus "died, was buried, and descended into Hell". Not that this Islamic belief or this Christian confession are false, but rather, that they cannot be settled purely on historical considerations. What God did or did not do to Jesus is a question of what God did or did not reveal to us or what we are or are not willing to have faith in. Christians believe God reveled to us that Jesus suffered, was buried, and subsequently descended into Hell (and on the third day rose again); Muslims believe that this was not a revelation from God, but rather, a mistake of the authors. What God actually revealed was that Jesus, in fact, was never crucified but was took into heaven. Now how is the question of who is right a historical or evidential question? I just don't see how it can be. It must be based on purely theological grounds. Maybe we could appeal to Occam's razor. The Christian account requires less assumptions. While this is true, if we are to take the razor seriously, supposing that Jesus simply was buried and did not "descendit ad inferos" " is a simpler explanation than what confessors of the Apostle's creed believe. It would seem them that appealing to simplicity is necessary for public endeavors, such as science and history, but fails to answer questions we ask in our private endeavors; such as what we ask in our mosques and churches.