Do Not Let Christian Apologists Dictate the Rules
When Christian apologists like Michael Licona debate the alleged resurrection of Christ, they prevent their opponents from advancing any theological and philosophical objections and try to restrict the debate to the domain of history. For them, Christ's alleged resurrection is only a historical question.
With all due to respect to Licona and others, they simply have no right to do so. History is not the only epistemic tool at our disposal here. If a solid theological argument could be leveled against the doctrine of resurrection, it must be addressed!
By Licona's admission, history only serves to proffer speculative knowledge at best (sidenote: we Muslims would be more nuanced when making such a claim). Thus, if one could offer a theological or philosophical argument that offers definitive knowledge, then that should take epistemic precedence over speculative knowledge. Regardless of the epistemic tool used, what truly counts at the end of the day is the reliability of the outputted knowledge itself.
Hence, a Muslim with definitive philosophical and theological reasons for rejecting Christianity is well within the bounds of reason to dismiss any speculative historical arguments advanced for Christ's alleged resurrection.
Moreover, it is critical to understand that even if Christ did die and rise from the dead, this does not necessitate that mainstream Christianity is true. For all we know, Biblical Unitarianism could be the truth! Thus, Christians still have more work to do in trying to defend the incarnation, atonement, and Trinity. The resurrection question is not the be-all and end-all of the broader discussion being had on the veracity of the Christian faith.