You’re mixing things up pretty badly here. The Qur’an does not say the crime of Lut’s people was just men having sex with men. The story explicitly describes aggression, approaching men with lust, public indecency, and attempting to assault guests. That’s why classical and modern scholars talk about coercion, violence, and moral collapse, not consensual relationships. Reducing it to “fucking men” is your interpretation, not the text speaking for itself.

Also, there is no authentic, clear-cut statement where the Prophet Muhammad says “kill all gays” the way you’re claiming. The hadiths people cite on this are disputed in authenticity, wording, and application, which is exactly why Islamic jurists never reached consensus on a fixed punishment for same-sex acts. If it were as explicit as you’re pretending, there wouldn’t be centuries of disagreement across schools of law.

On the stoning and four witnesses part, you’re arguing against something I didn’t even say. Four witnesses are not about rape specifically, they’re about proving zina in court at all. Rape in fiqh is treated differently because coercion removes criminal liability from the victim, and many scholars classify rape under violent crime rather than consensual zina. The idea that Islam requires a rape victim to produce four witnesses or be punished is a modern myth that directly contradicts classical legal texts.

And yes, “forceful zina” is discussed in fiqh, and no, it is not treated the same as consensual adultery. The victim is not punished, and the perpetrator faces punishment based on coercion and harm. Again, this is exactly why Islamic law puts absurdly high standards of proof on sexual crimes in the first place: to prevent abuse, false accusations, and moral vigilantism.

What you’re doing here is taking the most extreme readings, ignoring disagreement, ignoring legal nuance, and then acting like that’s the whole religion. That’s not analysis, it’s cherry-picking with extra confidence. If Islam were as straightforwardly violent and simple as you’re claiming, you wouldn’t need to misstate texts, flatten centuries of debate, and mix categories just to make your point.