to both conditions (1) that either one of the two forms cannot apply when just one of the two conditions is present. There are other parallels to this.
Likewise (2), it was incumbent on him (3) to ask him: “Did he kill it while mindful that he was in the state of ihram, or had he forgotten (4)?” For there is even greater disagreement (5) concerning one who forgets than concerning one who is ignorant.
He should also have asked him: “Did he kill it (6) because it attacked him? Or because dire hunger compelled him to do so (7)? Or did he kill it wantonly (8), for no reason?”
Furthermore, [in] (9) these distinctions there is evidence of the questioner’s ignorance (10), whereas Allah has declared anyone who is to be an infallible imam free of such ignorance. This is seen in his question: “Did he kill it outside the Sacred Precinct or within it?” For when someone in the state of ihram kills game, the penalty is due from him whether he killed it outside or within the Sacred Precinct (11), by agreement of the Muslims. Game within the Sacred Precinct may not be killed by either someone outside the state of ihram or someone in it. Thus, if someone in the state of ihram kills game within the Sacred Precinct, the prohibition is all the more emphatic, but the penalty remains one and the same.
As for his words, “a first-time or repeat offender,” this is a weak distinction adopted only by an isolated figure from among (12) the scholars.