Bhargava Narasimha

The resurrection absolutely must be scrutinised. If it is untrue Apostle Paul himself said Christians are the most miserable and doomed people on earth. We hinge our entire lives on it. It is the absolute foundation of Christianity so it must be heavily checked. But with that said it is incredibly hilarious to watch a Muslim scrutinise the resurrection using standards that instantly vaporise their own religion. The Islamic equivalent of the resurrection, in terms of foundational significance is Muhammad in the cave of Hira. Your own trusted sources explicitly state he fled that cave terrified and suicidal. He genuinely believed he had been attacked by a demon. He was entirely convinced he was possessed until he was talked out of it by his wife Khadija. She and her blind Christian cousin repackaged a demonic panic attack into a divine encounter. Now one might ask what was even Khadija's basis to know it was an angel and not a demon? According to credible Islamic traditions attributed to Ibn Ishaq, Khadija attempted to test the entity through an improvised veil experiment. Essentially she uncovered herself, and when Muhammad claimed the entity had disappeared, she concluded that it must have been an angel rather than a devil because angels do not look at unveiled women 😂😂😂. Think about that. The foundation of your faith rests, in part, on an experience nobody else witnessed, interpreted by a wife who was not present at the encounter, and reinforced through a test in which the only evidence was Muhammad’s own report of whether the unseen entity remained in the room. Your biggest physical sign from this founding incident is the splitting of the moon, an extraordinary astronomical event that conveniently no other civilisation on the entire planet witnessed. Not a single Chinese, Persian or Byzantine astronomer noticed the moon cleave in half yet you expect the world to believe it. As much as there is a temptation to meticulously defend the resurrection it is hard to take you seriously when you look at the moral fruits of your foundation. The disciples of Christ went out and performed highly attested public miracles. Paul raised a man from the dead in the middle of a crowded congregation. More importantly they lived the morally restrained lives you expect from men transformed by God. Paul went from a violent persecutor to enduring torture for peace taking no wives and amassing no wealth. Peter and the rest did the exact same. Muhammad changed for the worse with every ounce of power he amassed. He built a harem of wives including a nine year old child and his own adopted son’s wife who was also his cousin. He committed brutal acts of violence and consistently produced convenient revelations for his own sexual and political gain. Even Aisha famously mocked him in Sahih al Bukhari by stating she noticed his god did not hesitate to fulfill his desires. If you reject the resurrection for a want of evidence then you simply cannot be a Muslim. It makes zero logical sense. The foundational credibility of Islam is exponentially less reliable. Even if we were to assume the absolute worst of Christian historical attestation, the Islamic foundation remains a literal joke by comparison.