The religious belief of Daqiqi, the renowned poet of the Samanid period, remains one of the controversial subjects in Persian literary scholarship. His explicit verses in praise of the Zoroastrian religion, alongside his Islamic name and certain references to Muslim sacred figures, have given rise to differing views concerning his religious belief; thus, some scholars have regarded him as Zoroastrian, some as Muslim, and others as a figure marked by a dual experience of religious life. Adopting a critical-analytical approach, this article reexamines the textual and extra-textual signs related to Daqiqi’s worldview and, with attention to the cultural and historical contexts of the fourth century AH (tenth century CE), investigates the relationship between these signs and the poet’s religious orientations. To this end, in addition to analyzing his scattered verses and the semantic contexts of his poems, the study also examines the Goshtasp-nameh section and the judgments of modern scholars. The author argues that the Zoroastrian elements and references in Daqiqi’s poetry cannot be reduced merely to literary playfulness or poetic ornamentation; rather, they indicate a profound inner inclination and a meaningful attachment to the religious and cultural heritage of ancient Iran.

Keywords Daqiqi’s religious belief; Zoroastrianism; Samanid-period literature; Shahnameh; Goshtasp-nameh.
Introduction
The evidence concerning Daqiqi’s religious identity has given rise to competing interpretations in scholarship on his life and poetry. His explicit declaration that he had chosen the "Zoroastrian faith" and his numerous Zoroastrian references appear alongside the Islamic personal name and kunya attributed to him, his connections with Muslim courts, and his Islamic allusions. Some scholars interpret his declaration as an expression of religious conviction; others attribute it to the permissibility of drinking wine, poetic playfulness, or the demands of rhyme. The hypothesis that he changed religions during his lifetime, proposed by a group of scholars, also faces difficulties: his poems lack a clear chronology, and Islamic and Zoroastrian themes may coexist within individual compositions. This study critically reassesses the foundations of these competing interpretations by evaluating the arguments for and against Daqiqi’s Zoroastrian orientation and clarifying how his religious allusions relate to his beliefs and sense of identity.
Materials & methods
Using a critical and analytical approach, the study examines evidence in Daqiqi’s scattered poems and the Goshtasp-nameh in light of historical accounts, and critically evaluates previous scholarship on this basis. It considers attribution, variant readings, lexical meaning, tone, and the contexts of religious references. Schaeder’s arguments are evaluated in detail against more reliable textual readings of the Shahnameh - which were not available at that time - and are compared with passages from the Middle Persian Yadgar-e Zariran and the Zaratusht-nameh. These comparisons seek to address whether the elements he cited substantiate his claim regarding Daqiqi’s unfamiliarity with Zoroastrianism, and whether, in any case, they provide effective criteria for determining the poet’s religious belief. Islamic and Zoroastrian allusions are then evaluated through three interpretive criteria: the author’s historical horizon, the style of the references and the settings in which they are expressed, and their relationship to genre and semantic context. The study also examines religious dissimulation (taqiyya) and tolerance as contexts for interpreting the poet’s religious conduct and language.
Discussion & Result A central concern is Daqiqi’s two famous couplets naming four qualities he had chosen, including the Zoroastrian faith. Examining Shahbazi’s critique of Browne’s translation, the article emphasizes that these verses signify the poet’s choice rather than the fulfillment of his needs. Interpretations based on satisfying the poet’s needs or merely the permissibility of drinking wine in Zoroastrianism fail to reflect the explicit meaning of the verses. Attributing the declaration to rhyme becomes still less convincing when it is considered alongside his other explicit, personal expressions of attachment to Zoroastrianism.

Detailed analysis shows that some of Schaeder’s arguments rest on incorrect readings in Vullers’s Shahnameh edition. His interpretation of Goshtasp’s oath as invoking God and the prophet, and linking it to Islamic formulas, is supported neither by the more precise reading in Khaleghi-Motlagh's critical edition, which refers to "the religion of the pure-minded messenger," nor by its equivalent phrase in the Yadgar-e Zariran. Likewise, his claim that Daqiqi attributes contempt for the world to Zoroaster depends on a corrupted line; the corrected reading cited in the article conveys no such meaning. As demonstrated in the article, certain other verses are also questionable regarding their authenticity or attribution, and require closer scrutiny before being cited as evidence of the poet’s belief.
Collation with the Zaratusht-nameh further demonstrates that mentioning the Avesta and Zand together, designating Zoroaster as a prophet or messenger, and employing terms such as intercession and houris do not in themselves substantiate the poet’s Islamic identity or his unfamiliarity with Zoroastrianism; for these very expressions are also found in the diction of the Zoroastrian poet of the Zaratusht-nameh, effectively precluding such inferences. Consequently, expecting priestly erudition and the complete avoidance of prevailing Islamic idioms constitute inadequate criteria for determining a poet’s religion.

Conversely, Daqiqi’s wish to recite the Zand from memory and read the Ayardeh and Khordeh Avesta, his delight at hearing the Zand and Avesta and recognizing them as his ancestral tradition, his use of terms such as Tishtar and bar-raveshnan, and his praise of Zoroaster and the cypress of Kashmar provide converging evidence. The significance of these references is not a matter of frequency alone: their explicit wording, emotional tone, and occurrence in both lyric and epic verse are also central to their interpretation.

The study’s three interpretive criteria clarify why these references carry different evidential weight. Historically, explicit praise of Zoroastrianism and conventional Islamic expressions did not entail equal risks in the poet’s social and cultural environment. In Daqiqi’s verse, regarding tone, Zoroastrian references frequently convey personal inclinations in the first-person singular, whereas many Islamic allusions adopt a formal, descriptive register understandable within the context of panegyric odes for patrons. The consistency between Daqiqi’s scattered poems and his undertaking to versify the Shahnameh also makes an incidental or merely playful orientation less likely. Respect for Islamic sacred figures and concepts is interpreted in relation to contemporary literary language, patrons’ expectations, tolerance, and, at times, religious dissimulation.

Conclusion
The study concludes that Daqiqi’s explicit declaration of choosing Zoroastrianism, considered alongside the textual and historical evidence, was rooted in belief and identity and cannot justifiably be reduced to poetic playfulness. Many opposing arguments depend on misinterpretations, corrupted readings, or unwarranted expectations of his religious knowledge. The frequency, explicitness, and warmth of Zoroastrian references in his scattered poems and the Goshtasp-nameh indicate a deep attachment, very probably grounded in religious conviction. Conversely, the poet’s Islamic allusions are best understood in light of courtly relations, contemporary literary traditions, and the concepts of dissimulation (taqiyya) and tolerance, thereby illuminating the complexities of religious and cultural shifts in Samanid Iran.