وَحَدَّثَنِي عَلِيُّ بْنُ حُجْرٍ السَّعْدِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ مُسْهِرٍ، أَخْبَرَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ قَيْسٍ الْأَسَدِيُّ، عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ رَبِيعَةَ الْأَسَدِيِّ، عَنِ الْمُغِيرَةِ بْنِ شُعْبَةَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بِمِثْلِهِ، وَلَمْ يَذْكُرْ: «إِنَّ كَذِبًا عَلَيَّ لَيْسَ كَكَذِبٍ عَلَى أَحَدٍ»
Translation: ʿAlī ibn Ḥujr reports through ʿAlī ibn Mushir, Muhammad ibn Qays, ʿAlī ibn Rabīʿah and al-Mughīrah a similar Prophetic report, but this route does not include the sentence comparing lies about the Prophet with lies about others.
“Bi-mithlihi” refers back to a similar report, while “wa-lam yadhkur” explicitly marks a missing clause. The two routes must not be represented as word-for-word identical. Establishing the strength of either route or a particular wording requires further examination of transmitters and contextual evidence.