Islam does treat same-sex anal intercourse as a grave sin, and much of classical law attached a severe criminal penalty to it. But that is not the same as saying Islam commands Muslims to hunt, expose, or kill people for private desires or identity.
The objection at its strongest
The criticism is not silly or imaginary. It says: the Quran presents the Prophet (PBUH) as the moral pattern for believers, and hadith reports command killing for "the act of the people of Lot." If most jurists then prescribe execution for sodomy, how can Muslims claim this is merciful or compatible with human dignity?
"There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent example for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah often."
Quran 33:21
"Whoever you find doing the act of the people of Lot, kill the one who does it and the one to whom it is done."
Sunan Abi Dawud 4462; Jami' at-Tirmidhi 1456; Sunan Ibn Majah 2561
So the objection has two parts: first, that the sources condemn the act; second, that classical law often treated it as a capital crime. Both points must be faced honestly.
What the sources actually establish
The Quran repeatedly condemns the people of Lot for approaching men with lust instead of women. It does not, however, state a worldly legal punishment for this act in the way it states punishments for some other crimes.
The hadith quoted above is real, but its chains and legal force were discussed by hadith scholars and jurists. Many scholars accepted it, along with reports from Companions, as evidence for a severe penalty. Others differed over the exact legal classification: some treated male sodomy like zina, some as a distinct hadd, and some placed aspects of it under discretionary punishment. The Hanafi school, for example, is more cautious about calling it the same hadd as zina, though it still regards the act as a major sin and punishable by the ruler.
So yes: a large body of classical Islamic law prescribes execution for proven male anal intercourse between men. But no: the Quran itself does not give a direct penal verse for it, and the jurists were not unanimous on every detail.
Not desire, not identity, not vigilantism
Islamic law judged outward acts, not mere attraction. A person experiencing same-sex desire is not punished for that desire. Temptation itself is not a crime. Private sins are not to be spied on, exposed, or dragged into public. The Prophet (PBUH) repeatedly discouraged seeking out people's hidden faults.
Also, criminal punishments in Islamic law are not carried out by individuals, mobs, families, or activists. They belong only to a legitimate judicial authority, with due process and strict proof. In sexual cases, proof is deliberately difficult: either a clear voluntary confession, which can be retracted in many cases, or testimony meeting an extremely high standard. This structure is meant to protect privacy, block vigilantism, and prevent punishment based on rumor, hatred, or suspicion.
What this does and does not answer
For Muslims, moral law is not built on modern liberal autonomy alone, but on revelation, human nature, family, social order, and accountability before God. That is why Islamic law can prohibit consensual sexual acts that secular law permits. The disagreement here is not merely about "harm"; it is about what sex is for, what public morality means, and who has the authority to define right and wrong.
At the same time, Muslims should state the matter carefully. Classical Islamic law does contain capital rulings for a narrowly defined act under strict judicial conditions. It does not establish permission to harm people, bully them, expose them, deny their humanity, or punish them for feelings. The Prophet (PBUH) is followed through law, mercy, restraint, modesty, and justice together - not by turning sacred law into personal violence.
That plain distinction matters: Islam condemns the act, classical law often punished it severely when legally proven, and ordinary Muslims have no license to take punishment into their own hands.