Why are Taha Hussein and Abu al-Ala al-Ma'arri criticized, and is it permissible to read their works despite accusations of them disparaging Islamic law, while the same is not said about Al-Mutanabbi, despite his extravagance and lack of interest in religion? Is there a contradiction in this?

Abu Al-Ala Al-Ma'arri and Taha Hussein are not considered insane and therefore not accountable. Rather, they were rational and aware of what they were uttering. They doubted Islam and spread atheism and heresy.

Regarding Abu Al-Ala Al-Ma'arri: Scholars have unanimously condemned him for his heresy and impiety. His poetry contained elements indicative of his heresy and abandonment of religion, to the extent that he said: "Life, then death, then resurrection A myth, O Umm Amr." He also exaggerated in his animosity towards the prophets.

As for Taha Hussein: He cast doubt on the Quran and authentic Hadith, slandered the Companions, and called for emulating the West. He considered the Quran's source to be Jewish and Christian stories, and denied the story of Abraham and Ishmael and their migration to Mecca, deeming it a myth. He described Ibn Abbas as "a thief who takes from the public treasury." A committee of Al-Azhar scholars confirmed that his book, "Fi al-Shi'r al-Jahili" (On Pre-Islamic Poetry), is filled with the spirit of atheism and heresy, and contains many insinuations against religion.

Abu Al-Tayyib Al-Mutanabbi: His poetry did not contain this atheistic spirit, although he was self-admiring. He claimed prophethood then repented.

It is not permissible to read the works of Abu Al-Ala Al-Ma'arri and Taha Hussein that contain atheism and misguided beliefs, except for those who are religiously qualified to refute them. Otherwise, there is no harm in reading other works, although it is better to avoid them for those whose knowledge does not qualify them to refute false ideas.