A metaphor is only a vehicle for the expression of a Thing. Ladinsky gets hung on the metaphor and ignores the Thing.
You are right that all translations are interpretations (and all engagement with art is interpretation). But Ladinsky doesn't interpret. He sometimes straight up invents verses intended (we will presume) to capture the spirit of Hafiz and other mystic poets, but in doing so he strips Hafiz of his 14th-century Islamo-Persian identity and presents a sanitised collection of mostly banal platitudes, a near-blank canvas if you will, a canvas to project on. And interpretation is about understanding, not about projection.
I would have no argument with Ladinsky if he published his "interpretations" under his own name, and added a byline like "inspired by the works of Hafiz". But he doesn't. He ascribes his sentiments to Hafiz; tantamount to forgery.
See the following articles for a more lucid explanation of the problem with Ladinsky and Coleman Barks.
That so many of the poems attributed to Hafez are fake reveals a Western appropriation of Muslim spirituality.
www.aljazeera.com
Rumi is often called a mystic, a saint, an enlightened man. He is less frequently described as a Muslim.
www.newyorker.com