The verse mandates the penalty for the one returning [to the act] due to its generality. The mention of punishment for the remainder does not negate the obligation, just as Allah Almighty said: {So whoever has received an admonition from his Lord and desists, then what is past is his, and his affair is with Allah. But whoever returns, those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally}. It is established that if the one who returns desists, what is past is his, and his affair is with Allah. It is not valid to analogize the penalty for game to other [prohibited acts] because its penalty is specifically defined and varies according to its smallness or bigness. If he were to destroy two pieces of game together, the penalty for both would be mandatory, and the same applies if they were killed separately, unlike other prohibited acts.

Section: It is permissible to discharge the penalty for game after wounding it and before its death. Ahmad explicitly stated this because it is an expiation for killing, so it is permissible to offer it before death, just like the expiation for killing a human being. Moreover, it is an expiation, so it is similar to the expiation for zihar and [broken] oaths.

689 - Issue: He said: "And if a group participates in the killing of a piece of game, there is one penalty upon them."

There are also three narrations from Ahmad regarding this issue. The first is that the mandatory requirement is one penalty; this is the correct view. This is narrated from 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, Ibn 'Abbas, and Ibn 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with them. This is the view held by 'Ata', al-Zuhri, al-Nakha'i, al-Sha'bi, al-Shafi'i, and Ishaq. The second is that there is a penalty upon each individual; Ibn Abi Musa narrated this, and Abu Bakr chose it. This is the view held by Malik, al-Thawri, and Abu Hanifah, and it is narrated from al-Hasan, because it is an expiation for killing that involves fasting, making it similar to the expiation for killing a human being. The third is that if it were