Even the Jewish Sanhedrin, the religious leadership which ordered Jesus to be killed for blasphemy, documented His execution in their Talmud. Historians consider this as particularly strong proof of the facts since they consider the Sanhedrin as a "hostile" source of information. Hostile because admission of the act puts them in a bad light.
Even Islam's favorite agnostic scholar, Bart Ehrman, agrees that Jesus died on the cross:
"In any event, Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate." -- Bart Ehrman, "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings."
In spite of all the available historical evidence, Muslims continue to refuse to believe that Jesus died because that is what their religion teaches them. It is clear that their prophet Muhammad, who came more than 600 years after all these events transpired, was ignorant of King David's Messianic Psalm 22, as well as of the prophesies of the Suffering Servant Messiah in Isaiah 53. Muhammad's idea of the job description of The Prophet of God was obviously not based on the Biblical record.
But because Muslims take the word of their non-eyewitness prophet, they have been forced to come up with alternative explanations for the historical facts surrounding the crucifixion. And these alternatives put them in some rather awkward positions which defy logic.
One such problem is this one: if Jesus was not crucified, then who was put on the cross in His stead?
Most Muslims believe that it was Jesus' betrayer Judas. They say that Allah somehow caused Judas to look like Jesus on the cross. But remember, this double had to look and sound enough like Jesus to fool Mary, Jesus' mother, and His best friend, John the Apostle.
As with many other things in Islam, this departure from the truth has left Muslims on a collision course with some extremely inconvenient historical facts.
In Acts 1, Jesus returns to heaven, leaving the Apostles to continue His work and spread His Gospel.
Peter has gathered Jesus' disciples in what is known today as "the Upper Room" in Jerusalem to discuss who it is who will replace the traitor Judas as the twelfth apostle. Peter said,
16 “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled that the Holy Spirit through the mouth of David spoke in advance about Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.
17 For he was one of our number and was allotted a share in this ministry.”
Gospel writer and historian Luke expounds:
18 Now this man acquired a field with his unrighteous wages. He fell headfirst and burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out.
19 This became known to all the residents of Jerusalem, so that in their own language that field is called Hakeldama (that is, Field of Blood).
But Akeldama is where, once again, Islam and historical fact part ways.
As Luke noted for us, Judas' death and the place where he died was well known to "all the residents of Jerusalem." The Field of Blood was so named because Judas had died there.
So now Muslims are stuck with another problem. If "Allah" replaced Jesus on the cross with Judas, who was the man who replaced the Judas who hung himself and died at Akeldama?
Muslims claim that Allah is a just god, but following their logic on the crucifixion, Allah put Judas in Jesus' place on the cross.
Which means that Judas died for Jesus' alleged crime of blasphemy.
And then Allah cloned someone else altogether to look like the Judas who hung himself and died in the Field of Blood. According to Muslims, that man, whoever he was, was also killed to cover the "cloning" of Jesus with Judas.
What a mess!
But it only gets worse for Muslims from there. Three days later, Judas, now looking like Jesus, somehow raised himself from the dead, rolled what was possibly a 2-ton stone upward and away from the entrance to the tomb, and then, unarmed and naked, singlehandedly defeated the guards stationed outside.
If you think that is preposterous, you are not alone.
It is always far better to stay with Bible truth because it is solidly based on eyewitness testimony rather than Muhammad's double hearsay which comes 600 years after the fact. Through the centuries, Gospel truth has also repeatedly proven itself to be historical fact.
That is why it is far better to put your faith in the truth of God's Word, the Bible.