Calling the Islamic explanation the weakest of the options is exactly the kind of verdict a Muslim reader will experience as contempt, especially from a site that claims to state opposing views in their strongest form.

That is a fair point about wording, and the better phrasing is the option that requires the most to be set aside. The substitution view accepts the appearances of a crucifixion and posits that they were divinely arranged to mislead, which is something a historian cannot evaluate at all. Saying the theory lies outside historical assessment is both more accurate and more respectful than ranking it. The disagreement is real, but it is about method as much as about evidence, and it should be described that way.