Imran Khan and Jesus Christ

Imran Khan initiated the Mercy to the Worlds Conference in Pakistan on the occasion of the Birthday of Prophet Muhammad in which he said the following words: "Jesus Christ is not mentioned in the history." Following is a short YouTube video I have pasted of the actual remarks by the Prime Minister of Islamic Republic of Pakistan:

    Imran Khan - finally, a ray of hope in Pakistani politics - recently stated that Prophet Jesus - peace be upon him - historically did not exist but there was ample evidence to show that Prophets Moses and Muhammad - peace and blessings be upon them - existed as actual historical figures.
    People began to bash him on Twitter and Facebook, calling him an idiot and trying to refute Imran by quoting Qur'anic verses mentioning Jesus.
    Imran Khan is a Muslim, a sane one. Only a moron will deny that Jesus is not mentioned in Qur'an. Imran Khan was talking about outside sources of the existence of Jesus.
    For example, Prophet Muhammad is mentioned in Qur'an, hadith and Sirah. But outside evidence of his existence will be his non-Muslim contemporary authors mentioning him. He passed away in 632 AD. So, if a Greek/Persian author mentions him in a manuscript that dates back to the seventh century AD, it will be called a strong proof of the Prophet's existence as a genuine historical personality.
    It is an astounding fact that Jesus is not mentioned during the first century AD when he is claimed to have been executed around 33 AD.
    Prophet Muhammad was mentioned with name by non-Muslims during the first decade after his death.
    Moses, although, has no mention in outside sources. So, yeah, here Imran Khan made a blunder. Yikes!
    But when Imran Khan claims that Jesus is not mentioned anywhere while Muhammad is, he is actually not making any non-scholastic or academically-uncertain assertion; Imran Khan is stating a 100% accurate fact.

Josephus

    Which non-Christian sources first mention Jesus? You can count Flavius Josephus (writing by the end of the first century AD) as the primary non-Christian wirness of Jesus' existence. But it is often alleged that a Christian added some sentences mentioning Christ in Josephus' book because it is impossible to think that Josephus (d. 100 AD), a Jewish historican, would call Jesus the genuine Messiah! Then Tacitus (d. 117 AD) makes mention of Jesus who lived during the reign of Tiberius (d. 37 AD), as per Tacitus. Pliny the Younger (d. 113 AD) scorned Christians who worshiped Jesus. So, we can ascertain that Jesus' historicity is a matter of much credibility. For further research, read the books authored by Mr. Bart D. Ehrman.
    Which non-Muslim sources first mention Muhammad? Well, one should be glad to learn that our beloved Prophet (صلی اللہ علیہ و الہ وسلم) was mentioned by non-Muslim authors just after he died. Some critics of Islam doubted the historicity of the Arabian Prophet (Patricia Crone through her theory of Hagarism) but most of these theories are false.
[False theories: Muhammad was the name of one of Umar's scribes or Muhammad was the title given to Jesus by monotheistic Christians]
"...and many villages were ruined with killing by (Arabs of) Muhammad and a great number of people were killed and captives (were taken)..."
(Fragment on the Arab Conquest [636 AD])
"...there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Muhammad..."
(BL Add. 14643 [635-36 AD])

Maximus the Confessor, another contemporary witness of Muhammad's existence

    The most complete account is given by Sebeos, a Bagratuni bishop from Armenia. He writes about the end of the first Muslim Civil War (the Hasan-Mu'awiyah Treaty) after which the Umayyads ascended the throne of the Caliphate. He makes the following observations regarding the Islamic Prophet:
⦁    He was an Ishmaelite.
⦁    His name was Mahmet.
⦁    He was a merchant by profession.
⦁    He called Arabs towards the Abrahamic god.
⦁    He knew of the Old Testament.
⦁    He unified the Arab tribes.
⦁    He commanded them not to eat carrion, drink alcohol, tell a lie or engage in adultery.
⦁    He asked them to "seize the land which God" had given "to your father Abraham".
    Summary: Imran Khan, once again, was correct!

 

 Thus, people should stop criticizing Imran if they failed to understand the high-level historical discussions he is capable of having.