Abu l-Qasim Al-Khu’i writes:

فإذا قلنا إن الحديث أو الطريق صحيح فمعناه أنه معتبر وجحة وإن كان بعض رواته حسنا أو موثقا وإن قلنا إنه ضعيف فمعناه أنه ليس بجحة ولو لأجل أن بعض رواته مهمل أو مجهول

,,When we say, that a tradition or chain is authentic (Sahih), it has to mean that it is acceptable and a proof (Hujjah) even if some of its narrators are good (Hasan) or trustworthy (Muwaththaq) and when we say that it is weak (Da’if), it has to mean that it is not a proof (Hujjah) if some of its narrators are rejected or unknown.” [Mu’jam-ur-Rijal, Volume 1, page14]

ومما تثبت به الوثاقة أو الحسن أن ينص على ذلك أحد الاعلام كالبرقي وابن قولويه والكشي والصدوق والمفيد والنجاشي والشيخ وأضرابهم وهذا أيضا لا إشكال فيه وذلك من جهة الشهادة وحجية خبر الثقة

,,One proves, that someone is trustworthy (Thiqah) or good (Hasan), by having one of the renowned scholars such as Al-Barqi, Ibn Qawlawaih, Al-Kashshi, As-Saduq, Al-Mufid, An-Najashi, At-Tusi and those of their ilk make this statement and there is no problem in that and it is done through a testimony and proof of a trustworthy report.” [Mu’jam-ur-Rijal, Volume 1, page 41]

إن إخبار الشيخ الصدوق عن صحة رواية وحجيتها إخبار عن رأيه ونظره، وهذا لا يكون حجة في حق غيره

,,If the scholar As-Saduq considers a tradition to be authentic (Sahih) and proof (Hujjah), it is only an expression of his own opinion, but not proof (Hujjah) for others.” [Mu’jam-ur-Rijal, Volume 1, page 88]

وعليه كان توثيق النجاشي وتضعيف ابن الوليد والصدوق وأبي العباس مع تقرير النجاشي له واردين على مورد واحد فلا يمكننا الحكم بوثاقة الرجل

,,An-Najashi considered him trustworthy (Thiqah), but Ibn-ul-Walid and As-Saduq and Abu l-Abbas considered him weak (Da’if), despite the confirmation for him from An-Najashi with two references in a single place, so it is not possible for us to classify the person as trustworthy (Thiqah).” [Mu’jam-ur-Rijal, Volume 5, page 298]

لا يمكن الاعتماد على رواياته لشهادة النجاشي بأن الاصحاب ضعفوه وكذلك ضعفه ابن الغضائري نعم لو لم يكن في البين تضعيف لامكننا الحكم بوثاقته مع فساد عقيدته بل مع كفره أيضا

,,One cannot believe in his traditions, because An-Najashi testified that the companions considered him weak (Da’if) and likewise Ibn-ul-Ghada’iri considered him weak (Da’if). Yes, if there were no clear grading that he was weak (Da’if), then we could classify him as trustworthy (Thiqah), despite his false beliefs and despite his disbelief (Kufr).” [Mu’jam-ur-Rijal, Volume 6, page 25]

وأما تضعيف ابن الغضائري فلم يثبت لعدم ثبوت نسبة الكتاب إليه

,,As for the gradings by Ibn-ul-Ghada’iri as weak (Da’if), it is not provable, because the book is not verifiably from him.” [Mu’jam-ur-Rijal, Vol. 10, p. 59]

Comment:

If it does not suit Mr. Khu’i, that an early scholar says it is Authentic (Sahih), then it is just his own opinion and not a proof. If it suits Mr. Khu’i, that an early scholar says it is weak (Da’if), it is suddenly a proof. Who tells Mr. Khu’i that it is not the other way around? Authentic (Sahih) is the proof and weak (Da’if) is just his own opinion? Why does Mr. Khu’i rely on one opinion but not the other? Why does As-Saduq speak the falsehood when he says authentic (Sahih) but the truth when he says weak (Da’if)?