This attack would be much improved by referencing another translation. As written your comment is impossible to understand; if you read the linked article the implication is that the quoted poem is divorced from historical, cultural or religious context and hence in some way inauthentic. As an attack on the entire corpus of the most popular interpreters of Rumi in English it lands wonderfully. If you can’t read Farsi or Arabic you can’t translate.
But as a veiled attack on those who like the poem, why bother? The authenticity is irrelevant to whether the poem speaks to people.
Would you like to rethink some of the weird and unmerited 'attack' rhetoric from your first post, btw? Seems - really weird, idk. There was no attack, just information.
But as a veiled attack on those who like the poem, why bother? The authenticity is irrelevant to whether the poem speaks to people.