As for His words,

“That is Jesus,”

referring to the name: if they interpret them in this way, they are figurative, because the utterance—which is the name—is not ascribed to him. For this reason we say:

“It is not for Allah to take a son. Glory be to Him!”

The name, which is an utterance, is not the son of Mary. Rather, the son of Mary is the very body and spirit to which the name applies—the one at whose hands miraculous signs appeared, and whom they made a god because those signs appeared.

As for their statement that what is meant is the very substance of the calf when he scattered it: once scattered, it ceased to be a calf. Rather, “the calf” properly denotes the particular form that lowed. Otherwise, gold filings reach only the hearts, and the furthest they reach is the bodily cavities. As for the natural faculty preceding them and transforming them until they reach the heart, that is not the case. Rather, when gold filings enter the stomach, they settle there, unable to rise beyond that location, let alone reach the heart.

Furthermore, the Arabic expression “they were made to imbibe” does not refer to drinking itself, but to its causes—namely, making something be swallowed. This pertains to love, not to entities that are physical bodies. Hence one does not say, “They were made to imbibe water into their hearts,” even though water is something drunk. How, then, could this be said of the calf, especially when its very association with the heart associates it with the seat of love?

It is related in a report that, when they consumed its filings, they would say, “This is dearer to us than Moses and the God of Moses,” because of the love for it that had taken hold of their hearts.