For this reason, soliciting a boy to commit an indecency with him is a greater injustice than soliciting a woman, because the woman has her own desire. It is thus a kind of exchange: each obtains the gratification they seek, which is of the same kind as the other’s. The two therefore offset one another, while Allah’s right remains binding upon them. Hence illicit sexual intercourse, considered in itself, does not involve wronging another person unless it violates a marriage bed, compromises lineage, or causes some similar harm.

As for the man who engages in sodomy, the boy has no interest in it except through inducement or fear. What he desires, and money, belong to the category of permissible needs. Thus, if the man solicits an indecency from him, he may agree to it. Even if he consents to it now, this is akin to wronging someone who makes a payment because he needs money. Here, however, the injustice affects his very person and inviolability, making it more grievous.

Likewise, hiring him to perform forbidden acts, such as soothsaying, sorcery, and the like, constitutes injustice towards him, even when he consents. The other party may also have wronged his counterpart by damaging his religious commitment through agreeing to join him in the sin. Nevertheless, these two forms of injustice are different in kind. This is a matter that deserves careful attention: most sins involve wronging others, and all involve wronging oneself.