Aren't the proofs for Christianty and Islam the same?
The main thing that most Christians will reference when discussing whether the ressurection is true is the vast amount of historical evidence that has led many secular scholars over the years to change from the idea that the ressurection was made up, to the Apsotles at least sincerely believed that Jesus rose from the dead. The way we determine this is that the Apostles and early Christians very early on attested to Jesus dying and rising and they were willing to die for this belief.
So, overall, we have a long line of early tradition, testimony, and historical evidence.
Many Muslims will claim the the Prophet Mohammad had a revelation from God that became the Quran and things like the hadiths reveal that Mohammad also performed miracles. The Muslim apologist will also mention how the hadiths have a MUCH better attested line of communication from the early eyewitnesses to Mohammad's miracles to the current writers. Without this, Haidths are rejected. This process is considered quite rigorous to examine the historical accuracy. It is also important to note the persecution early Muslims faced in Mecca. They were also killed and isolated far before they became politically involved.
So, overall, we have a long line of early tradition, testimony, and historical evidence
So...both have the same type of evidence for miraculous ideas. So which is true? They cant both be true. They are completely mutually exclusive.