Muslims argue that Jesus was not crucified in order to prove what they believe the Qu'ran says "And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain."-Sura 4:157. Although the Qu'ran also has the Islamic Jesus saying "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life" and then the God of the Qu'ran says in the following Ayah "Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute." Some Muslims argue that Jesus will die and then raise some time in the future, although it seems clear that the Islamic Jesus' speech (As an infant) is clearly in support of the Islamic Jesus dying and being "Risen up to life" as this speech is supposedly spoken to a crowd of people wanting to know why Mary is pregnant and gives no sign in that it is prophecy of some future dying and rising, after the Islamic Jesus was appeared to die to the Jewish people, while he was really taken away from the Islamic God.
Some Muslims use the following text(s) to try to prove that Jesus was never crucified.
The Apocalypse of Peter
What does this text say?
i)
When he said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said "What do I see, O Lord, that it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?"
The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."
ii)Later on it states "And he said to me, "Be strong, for you are the one to whom these mysteries have been given, to know them through revelation, that he whom they crucified is the first-born, and the home of demons, and the stony vessel, in which they dwell, of Elohim, of the cross, which is under the Law. But he who stands near him is the living Savior, the first in him, whom they seized and released, who stands joyfully looking those who did him violence, while they are divided among themselves. Therefore he laughs at their lack of perception, knowing that they are born blind. So then the one susceptible to suffering shall come, since the body is the substitute. But what they released was my incorporeal body. But I am the intellectual Spirit filled with radiant light. He whom you saw coming to me is our intellectual Pleroma , which unites the perfect light with my Holy Spirit."
iii)
iiii)
Problems with using the The Apocalypse of Peter
1.) The date of book: About 150 AD (About 80 years after Jesus' Crucifixion)
2.) The writers of the book: This book is a gnostic work. The gnostics believe: That Jesus was only a god, not truly in flesh. (II) That there are many gods. (III) That the GOD who made the physical world was evil. All of which the religion of Islam denies, so do they really want to work a gnostic work to prove the Qu'ran? Some Muslim's argue that these specific verses are valid and anything else against the teachings found in the Qu'ran are not, interesting how reality is twisted to fit to Muslim viewpoint. This doesn't disprove Islam or the Qu'ran in itself, however it does pose an apparent problem: The Muslims will deny first century Christian works accept for what the Qu'ran agrees with and do the same with second century gnostic works. This is valid only if the Qu'ran is proven to be GOD's Inspired Word, which I differently cannot believe based on my research.
3.) This text clearly uses Greek mythological imaginary and resembles Greek thought.
In conclusion
This "Apocalypse of Peter" cannot be used as proof that Jesus was never crucified as (1) Came about 80 years after Jesus'
Crucifixion. (2) Cannot be from Peter as he could not have lived to 150 years without Divine intervention. If Muslims want to go with Peters writings, then why not believe his letters? (1st and 2nd Peter) Well they can't do this without turning their back on their own false religion. (3) Thirdly, the text uses Greek mythological images. If it were true that these words are true in regards to Christ's Crucifixion then why are these so late? After about eighty years isn't it possible that the gnostics would write something to try to promote their religions views? Doesn't it make more sense to trust our early Gospels, letters and histories; that state that Jesus was GOD, was Crucified and was raised?
Dr. Zacharias is recognized as a distinguished lecturer with the Staley Foundation and has appeared on CNN, Fox, and other international broadcasts. His weekly radio program, "Let My People Think," is aired on more than 1700 outlets worldwide, his weekday program, "Just Thinking," on 475, and his one-minute "Just a Thought," on more than 100. Additionally, various broadcasts are translated into Romanian and Turkish, while "Let My People Think" airs as the Spanish-language program "Pensemos" on nearly 200 outlets in seventeen countries. He is Founder and President of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, with additional offices worldwide."-From http://www.rzim.org/aboutus/ravizacharias.aspx. 
