“We see this profundity and beauty in Rumi's Mathnavi”.<p>Those of us who can’t read Persian are blind to Rumi without translators. Literal translations into English may sound more authentic to those whose first language is Persian, but carry no poetry with them. Some of the Eastern literature Orientalist translations in the early 20th C suffered from that, and are generally ignored outside of scholarly circles.<p>Better to sing a beautifully inspired song well than to sing the original poorly. Bark’s remarkable popularity in the West suggests he did the former quite well.<p>It may be impossible to sing the “pure” original well in English...by the standards of the post author, no one has.<p>That sort of gatekeeping is admirable if you are fighting against cultural appropriation. That isn’t the case with most poetry in translation into English. Nobody is doing poetry slams in ghazals in the US (correct me if I’m wrong). Rumi translations in Victoria’s Secret stores? Well, at least it’s getting poetry into the hands of an audience who normally doesn’t think of poetry.<p>Gatekeeping in Rumi’s religious aspects is a feature in some threads of Islam that doesn’t map well into most modern Western cultures. Although the young Rumi would have supported the gatekeeping role, after his books were thrown down the well, I don’t think he would have minded Barks all that much.<p>His followers and commentators may still feel the need to protect Rumi with gatekeeping. But then, aren’t they (or their progeny) the ones who would have “disappeared” Shams to “protect” Rumi?<p>Rumi doesn’t really need such protection. He is one of the world’s great poets.<p>The rest of the article, I fear, will lead to arguments over semantics of “art” and “religion” that go around in circles and lead nowhere..