Scholars differed over whether reports transmitted **after repentance** by a proven hadith fabricator may be accepted. The restrictive view, reported from **Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Abū Bakr al-Ḥumaydī and Abū Bakr al-Ṣayrafī**, maintains permanent rejection even after repentance. One stated rationale is the extraordinary, enduring harm of introducing forged material into the religion, requiring a strong deterrent.
**Al-Nawawī's preferred view:** genuine repentance is valid, and subsequent reports may in principle be accepted when its conditions are met. He argues by analogy with the acceptance of transmission from someone who was formerly a disbeliever and then became Muslim, and sees no necessary distinction here between testimony and hadith transmission. Repentance requires ceasing the offense, remorse and resolve not to return. **It does not automatically establish a narrator's precision or authenticate any later individual isnād**; that evidence still requires assessment.