This study discusses the accusation pointed to “Ibn Juraij” theoretically and practically; Some of these accusations were spread by many Imams of hadith but upon investigation and following the statements of the senior critics it shows that they either did not declare these accusations, or they meant the fraud. The significance of this research lies in rejecting the suspicion that Ibn Hibban was described with leniency in documenting the narrator’s accusation of changing the wording of the transmission of the hadith from someone who spoke to us or told us into a formula that blurred others or delusional information so that it was heard while he actually did not hear it. One of the most important objectives of this research is to find a scientific and specialized study of the narrators accused of this change in Sahih Ibn Hibban, and to clarify their status. This results in the correction of their hadiths in his Sahih and the discussion of those accused of discussing, such as Ibn Juri. The researcher followed historical “retrospective” approach in understanding the terminology of the hadith in which the imams contested with Ibn Hibban, such as the definition of Deception, its applications; and the critical analytical approach to discuss the sayings and rules that Ibn Hibban and the most scholars said in matters of al-Jarh and al-Tadeel, and to discuss the validity of the offender’s claim and accuse Ibn Hibban of insufficiency in his method of correctness and its degree, in accepting the narrators accused of deception. As for the most distinguished results, it was found that Ibn Juraij used to mislead the deception of the Sheikhs, only this has been proven from his sheikh Ibrahim bin Abi Yahya. However, he was not overbearing of deception. This study discusses the accusation pointed to “Ibn Juraij” theoretically and practically; Some of these accusations were spread by many Imams of hadith but upon investigation and following the statements of the senior critics it shows that they either did not declare these accusations, or they meant the fraud. The significance of this research lies in rejecting the suspicion that Ibn Hibban was described with leniency in documenting the narrator’s accusation of changing the wording of the transmission of the hadith from someone who spoke to us or told us into a formula that blurred others or delusional information so that it was heard while he actually did not hear it. One of the most important objectives of this research is to find a scientific and specialized study of the narrators accused of this change in Sahih Ibn Hibban, and to clarify their status. This results in the correction of their hadiths in his Sahih and the discussion of those accused of discussing, such as Ibn Juri. The researcher followed historical “retrospective” approach in understanding the terminology of the hadith in which the imams contested with Ibn Hibban, such as the definition of Deception, its applications; and the critical analytical approach to discuss the sayings and rules that Ibn Hibban and the most scholars said in matters of al-Jarh and al-Tadeel, and to discuss the validity of the offender’s claim and accuse Ibn Hibban of insufficiency in his method of correctness and its degree, in accepting the narrators accused of deception. As for the most distinguished results, it was found that Ibn Juraij used to mislead the deception of the Sheikhs, only this has been proven from his sheikh Ibrahim bin Abi Yahya. However, he was not overbearing of deception.