[We (i.e. al-Amini) say: If by labeling them both as untrue the author wishes to belittle their chains of transmission, we say that: Abu Hurayra’s version is considered by the experts of the field (of hadith) to be authentic- regarding its chain of transmission- and that its relaters are documented. We will detail that when we come to the issue of fasting of Ghadir Day. Abu Sa`id’s version has multiple chains of transmission - as said earlier- in al-Hamawayni’s book “Fara’id al-Simtayn”. On the other hand, this version of the tradition is not related exclusively from Abu Sa`id and Abu Hurayra, but it was also known to have been related by Jabir b. ‘Abdullah, Mujahid al-Makki (the commentator), and by both Imam al-Baqir and Imam al-Sadiq (s) on whose version the scholars rely. Furthermore, Ibn Mardawayh was not the only scholar and collector of traditions who related it. Al-Suyuti himself quoted it in his book ‘Al-Durr al-Manthur’ (The version of al-Khatib and Ibn 'Asakir). Another group of people were also known to have quoted it in their chains of transmission which included people like Al-Hakim al-Naysaburi, al-Bayhaqi, Ibn Abi Shaybah, al-Darqutni, al-Daylami, al-Haddad and others. Not one of them belittled it! If by judging it to be untrue he meant that it contradicts the story that it was revealed on ‘Arafat Day, he is risking labeling it totally invalid on both sides. Suppose that he thinks the other side is more likely, this does not justify a definitive judgment to invalidate this side, as it is the case when two traditions contradict, especially with the possibility that the verse was revealed twice as Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi thought possible on page 18 of his book “Tadhkirat al-Khawas ”, as it is the case with other verses which were sent down more than once like ‘Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim’, which was revealed in Mecca, Medina and elsewhere as will be mentioned below. However, the tradition that mentions its revealing on Ghadir Day is supported - as we mentioned earlier that it was related from al-Razi, Abu al-Sa'ud and others - by the fact that the Prophet [s] did not live for more than eighty-one or eighty-two days after that (refer to page 230 for verification.) In his judgment, al-Suyuti is copying Ibn Kathir who said on page 14 of volume 2, after mentioning the two versions of the tradition: “Neither version is competent”. The one who started it is the worst of the two!]