Christ did not only die according to the scriptures. It wasn’t to end there, but “that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures”. His burial and resurrection was itself prophesied by Jesus himself as he took an illustration from Jonah the prophet. (Matthew 12:40) “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Also this again was prophesied in Isaiah 53. “And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death”.

The Hebrew Scriptures speak also of his resurrection. There are many scriptures that prophesy this. The best known is from Psalm 16:10 and Peter the Apostle quoted this as he spoke to the Jews on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came down.

Someone commented to me once that the apostles and the evangelists who wrote the gospels were not, for the most part, prophets. Yes, God spoke to us through prophets all down the ages, but what is equally important are “WITNESSES”. The New Testament emphasises this all of the time.

The prophets have spoken, the prophesied events have taken place, and there were those who saw it, witnesses. For instance Jesus himself as he spoke to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:46-47) “Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things.”

Now, Hebrew Law demanded that everything must be established by two or three witnesses. That isn’t talking about forensic evidence or people who “think” they saw something, but those who were present at the time. We are told that not only two or three witnesses saw Christ alive, but over 500 at one time, which is what is important to Christians.

The Apostles everywhere are keen to show us that they were there and they saw these things, and different gospels exemplify this.

In recent years discoveries are being made in the archeological world that are confirming the accuracy of these scriptures. Among them of course is the discovery of the so called Dead Sea Scrolls. These were discovered in 1947, and are slowly being translated and pieced together. What is interesting is that before the Dead Sea Scrolls the earliest copies of the Hebrew Old Testament scriptures dated from around 900AD. These Dead Sea Scrolls contain all of the books of the Old Testament, either complete books or fragments. They have been dated to around 200 BC including a complete copy of the book of Isaiah dated between 335 – 107 BC.

When compared with modern copies they were found to be almost identical with one another with just a few grammatical variations and this was so with all the other scriptures found. Another interesting scroll was the book of Daniel. Most of it complete. Those critical of the book of Daniel thought because of its accuracy in prophesying events, it must have been written no more than 100 to 200 years before Christ. But this discovery means that at that time it was already established in the Jewish Canon of Scripture and this indicates that it was indeed written by Daniel the prophet as itself claims around 500 years before Christ.

The site of the Dead Sea Scrolls was thought to have been formed around 60 -70 years after Christ. So it is evident that when we read the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures that we have in our possession one of the most accurate documents known to Christians. Thus Christians have trusted grounds in believing that “that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures”.

I’ve argued that the apostle Paul’s gospel was not his own invention, but that everything he taught was “according to the scriptures”. Everything he taught could be found in the Hebrew prophecies.

The gospel that Paul preached was precisely the same as the other apostles preached. After his conversion he went away into Arabia and had no contact with the other Apostles. When he came back to Jerusalem he discovered that the gospel that he preached was precisely the same as that which the other Apostles were preaching and so he was welcomed into their number. But what was it that Paul preached?

The text tells us: “… how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day.” (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

The central theme of the gospel is seen in Paul’s words. Remove the foundational truths of the death and resurrection of Christ and the whole fabric of the Christian belief falls.

It says that first of all he died. Jesus’ death occurred exactly as the scriptures had predicted. “They shall look on him whom they pierced”–The quotation is from Zechariah 12:10; direct from the Hebrew. The choice of the words employed both by the prophet and the Evangelist for “piercing” matches exactly what happened to Christ on the cross. The word in Zechariah means to thrust through with spear, javelin, sword, or any such weapon. And where they nailed him to the cross can also be found in Psalm 22 where we read, “They pierced my hands and my feet.” The word there used for pierced is one signifying to bore as with an awl or hammer. In fact if you read the whole of Psalm 22 you will see a vivid description of the crucifixion of Christ, and it can also be seen written in the prophesy of Isaiah in chapter 53.

When the so called Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, there was much of the Hebrew scriptures found there which actually dated to the time of Christ or 100 years before him. There is a complete scroll of Isaiah as well, and when compared to those copies of which we have today, which are dated to around 900 AD they were to be found identical, with just a few grammatical variations. The entire prophesy was entact. So we have, as did the apostle Paul, a reliable source from which to take our teaching of the gospel.

Now, why did Christ die and why do Christians believe in his death?

We are told that there was something special about it. He died “for our sins”. The apostle tells us that Christ’s death was foretold in the Scriptures, that is the ancient Hebrew Scriptures. The canon of the New Testament was not yet made up, so the Christians of those days used the Hebrew Scriptures (most of the early church was Jewish) and some of them being Greek had also the Old Testament Greek version of those scriptures, called the “Septuagint”.

“For our sins”. What does that mean? Well what do the Hebrew scriptures say about it? Look at the prophesy of Isaiah, chapter 53, the same prophesy that Paul would have looked at. Isaiah was known as the evangelical prophet, because much of his prophesy is to do with the coming Messiah, or Christ. The whole of Isaiah 53 speaks of Christ’s sufferings and death. In fact this Messianic scripture begins at chapter 52, but just for shortness we will pick out just a couple of verses (Isaiah 35:4-6): “He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

We know it was often used by the early Christians in their preaching as can be seen in the Acts of the apostles (Acts 8:30-35). This scripture and many more were used by the apostle Paul and other early Christians to show that Jesus was indeed the expected messiah. What Paul was saying was that this coming Messiah had already come and that one was Christ. Christ himself also confirmed this to his own disciples after his resurrection, according to Luke’s gospel.

Now, here is one of the messianic sayings of Daniel. Its meaning would not have been understood until after Christ died, which makes it all the more astounding. Here it is, (Daniel 9:25-26) “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” Here among other things it speaks of Christs death, “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself…” It also speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem that was to follow many years after that. These scriptures demonstrate that Christ died for his people, that their sins were to be washed away by his death. “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”

Christ’s sacrifice is what the Hebrew Scriptures prophesied about. It is like a golden thread that runs through the Scriptures. It disappears for a while under the fabric only to reappear again elsewhere.

Once, the great question that perplexed the righteous Job was “how should man be just with God?” Here was a righteous man, but he could see that no matter what he did he could never be good enough to stand before God. For God dwelt in that light unto which no man could approach. He saw that his sin was a barrier to his fellowship with God. And a Christian is someone who has come to the same conclusion, but he has also seen that Christ and the sacrifice he has accomplished on the cross has broken down that barrier between man and God so that he can now have unbroken fellowship with Him.

This is what the gospel is about. This is the simple pivot point upon which the Christian faith rests.

Just for the record, I’m British. I mention that because I recognise that many people nowadays think that Christianity is a Western religion. I had someone say that to me: “Why should you go and preach our Western religion?”

This person was actually surprised when I informed her that Christianity originated in the Middle East. Overall, though, the conversation made me to think. I had to admit that the churches in the West have indeed “westernised” the gospel so much that they have lifted it right out of context, so to speak. So it is a good thing, as we read the New Testament, that we try and put things into a Middle Eastern context.

I would set out, as clearly as I can, what I as a Christian believe. I find inter-faith dialogue to be of great importance. Why do I believe what I believe? Let me tell you.

I call myself a Reformed Believer. I believe the same things the English Reformers believed in the 15th and 16th centuries; they, in turn, believed the same things as those in the early Christian Church. Their aim was to “Reform”, to put right those things they considered to be errors that had grown up within the Church over the centuries.

As a Reform Believer, I am interested in the roots of Christianity. In that light, the portion of scripture which, I think, illustrates in a nutshell the entire Christian faith is to be found in one of the Apostle Paul’s letters to the churches that he himself founded in Asia Minor, the Church at Corinth. All the Apostles were instructed by Christ to “Go into the world and preach the gospel to every creature”. This is how all the early churches were founded, by word of mouth only, and not by force of arms – a method the Church later adopted. They were to begin at Jerusalem and then to go to every corner of the known world, preaching the gospel, and this is something that holds true today. That is why Christianity is a missionary religion.

I know this may be a sticking point for many Muslims, who may judge these early apostles by the egregious behaviour of many modern day missionaries. But please bear with me. I believe that we can only understand something properly if we rid our minds of any pre-conceived ideas we may have. I have always endeavoured to do this with Islam, personally.

So here we go. The verse of scripture I have chosen is taken from the Apostle Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians chapter 15 and verses 1-4.

(1 Corinthians 15:1-4) “1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures”.

In order to break this study down into manageable portions, I have divided it into 3 short articles and will deal with the text under 4 main headings. (1) The Apostle Paul taught according to the Scriptures. (2) What Paul taught that was according to the Scriptures. (3) What the Scriptures teach about Christ’s death. (4) What the Scriptures say about Christ’s resurrection.

The first thing I’d like to impress upon you is that:

The Apostle Paul taught according to the scriptures. In these few verses he outlines the entire belief of Christians and anyone claiming to be a Christian must believe these things or they cannot be a Christian.

A Christian must believe that (1) Christ died for our sins. (2) that he was buried and (3) That he rose again from the dead. And what makes these articles of faith so demanding of our attention are these words of the Apostle “According to the scriptures”. It is these words which give the whole passage weight and meaning. Why is that? Because it means that the Apostle hasn’t just invented this gospel. But above all it means that he could not possibly have twisted the gospel into a lie. Because the scriptures were all there and open for his readers to see and to check up on him against what those scriptures said. And this is what they did.

Some just rejected it out of hand, just as some do today. But there were also those who tested what Paul said by comparing the Scriptures with his gospel. Just look at this verse in the Acts of the Apostles chapter 17 and verse 11. “… they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

Now, I wonder if I may be permitted to digress just a little into the life of the Apostle Paul? Let’s see just what happened to him to make him so fervent in his preaching this gospel that he was even prepared to go through great suffering and persecution for it, and to finally die for his faith.

It happened so we are told in the New Testament on the road to Damascus. Paul was a Jew and we are told he was a Pharisee as well, which is one of the strictest of Jewish sects. His faith was taught him from a very early age. Bear this in mind as we proceed to look at this man Paul.

He was on the Damascus road, probably not long after the stoning of Stephen, the first Christian martyr, where he held the coats of those who did the stoning. This probably had a devastating effect, for stoning was not a daily or even a common occurrence in Judea. But after ordaining himself as a kind of chief persecutor of this new Christian faith (it was just called “The Way” in the beginning), he believed men and women who had seemingly left their Jewish faith to join this new “sect” of the Nazareens to be a threat.

Suddenly, on that road, there appeared a blinding light and he fell to the ground and he heard this voice calling to him and saying, “Saul Saul, why persecutest thou me?” He called out, “Who art thou Lord?”. He obviously knew this was the voice of a being so great that he deserved the appellation Lord. And back came the answer, “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks [his conscience].” And he, trembling and astonished, said “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?”.

The Lord tells him to go into the city and there it will be told him what he must do. And we are told that he was at Damascus three days without sight (because he had been blinded by the light) and during this time he didn’t eat or drink because the experience was so traumatic. We are told that there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias, who came and laid hands on him and we are told scales fell from his eyes and he regained his site. Ananias was at first reluctant to go to him – “…But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.”

Now I tell you all this to try and demonstrate to you that it took something terrible and traumatic that suddenly changed the life of this man Paul or as he was known then “Saul of Tarsus”. This was no cool, calculating man intent on deception. Something happened to him.

Only God could cause such a change in someone’s life so as to cause that person to dedicate the rest of his life to preaching the gospel and experiencing great suffering and hardship and persecution in the process. There was only one way we could describe his experience and that is he must have been “born again” – “he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” (2 Corinthians 5:17)

Another way that we can tell that the Apostle didn’t just make it all up in order to deceive people is to show that the gospel he preached was exactly the same gospel that all the other apostles preached. Peter the Apostle testifies to this fact in his letter to the churches in Mesopotamia. (2 Peter 3:16) referring to Paul he says “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” So Peter as one of the chief Apostles saw nothing different to what they were teaching.

Would they have done that if he was preaching anything different than they themselves preached? Of course not. This in itself is witness that he was not out to deceive.

I hope to show that not only was Paul consistent with the accepted Christian teaching in the whole of the early church, but that, that which he preached was also consistent with what the Old Testament or Hebrew scriptures said. He was as I have mentioned before a Pharisee before he became a Christian, so he knew those scriptures like the back of his hand. I mean that literally. These Pharisees could tell you the middle letter of the entire scriptures and in those days they didn’t have chapters and numbered verses as we have today. If nothing else they were experts in their own scriptures and the Apostle Paul was no exception:

He says in another place (Philippians 3:4-7) “Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.”

I’ll be exploring the meat of Paul’s teachings and how they relate to the overall workings of my own beliefs very soon. I hope you will join me.

There’s an indelible link between our ideas of religion and our ideas of justice. More than loving your neighbor, more than forgiveness, more than culture and nationalism, the idea of justice is central to any persistent view of religious thought.

So OJ’s alleged partner in crime wasn’t actually stealing anything. In his mind he was righting a wrong, helping OJ get back his memorabilia that was stolen from him. That is justice, and that’s a religious concept, thus the Bible and his righteous proclamation.

Despite what the Christian Bible actually says, what people view it means is that wrongs will be righted, that the unjust will be punished even violently, and that the just will be rewarded.

You see this contradiction everywhere. The “Bible Belt” is huge on both capital punishment and the Ten Commandments. I suppose “You shall not kill” can be reinterpreted to mean “You shall not murder.” However, “murder” is a political word. One man’s murder is another man’s liberation. Besides all that, the New Testament is full of requirements by Jesus that we forgive our enemies and not retaliate.

What we ultimately strive for in terms of religious spirituality is for justice to prevail. Not to say that things like compassion and forgiveness aren’t extremely important, but these things tend to have relevance in a more personal setting. Individuals forgive for personal reasons. It would be a perversion of justice for societies to forgive criminals regularly without cause.

One of the most common, but strange, questions in religious philosophy concerns the injustice of God. Why do bad things happen to good people and why do good things happen to bad people? I say strange because the question is absurd. God is not unjust. Bad and good things happen for two reasons. First they happen randomly. Second they happen because we make them happen. God has nothing to do with it.

We know from the story of Job in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) that God on Earth acts in random ways, essentially like nature without any unseen motivation. We also know from the first chapter of the Quran that we must reach out to God in order to be shown the straight path.

This puts the cause of justice squarely in human hands. It’s up to us, not God to remedy injustice. This is a primary pursuit of human activity. We are motivated to create a just world and eliminate injustice.

The interesting suggestion that I would make is that injustice is much more than an element of behavior that humans remedy through criminal punishment. Injustice is innate to nature, and it’s up to us to get rid of it.

For instance cancer is an injustice. It’s unjust for a good person to suffer and die from cancer. Helping cure cancer is part of the fight for justice. A lot of people want to find cures for cancer, and it’s much more than making money or putting your name down in the history books. It is a part of our fundamental drive to make things right.

This idea begs the question of the degree of legitimacy of the US pursuit of justice in foreign lands. Consider that cancer kills over one half a million Americans each year, and now the US deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan greatly out number deaths from 9/11 and all acts of global terrorism. I would say that if we prioritized our pursuit of justice, we would have different policies with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan.

We live in a violent world, and America is a violent society. I would suggest that this violence comes from not understanding the concept of justice, and being unjust in our application of government policy.

For instance, many American children join gangs. My claim is that they do this because the framework of justice that they grow up in, both at home and society at large is inconsistent and corrupt. They seek out gangs because within them, justice is swift and consistent in the self contained world of a young gang member. Paradoxically the drive to join a gang in a young person comes from that person’s desire for justice.

And on the global stage, meanwhile, the US hegemonic system of justice is absurd. It’s kind of like the Wild West out there were people are motivated to take justice into their own hands because just power structures are either non-existent or the power structures are unjust themselves. We won’t see any ebbing of challenges to the global power structures until they become just.

Forgive me, Ernesto, for helping myself to this undeserved title of which I am grossly unworthy. I ask permission not only because I’m so unlike you in that I cannot believe in a single earthly dogma for the salvation of mankind so as to dedicate my whole existence to fight and die for it.

This noble, but often blinding, human trait is only part of the abyss that demarcates your fearless soul from mine. What really sets us apart here is that my inconsequential motorcycle expeditions will not leave these pages, whereas your celebrated treks are already grand history. And so are you. From t-shirts to boxer shorts, your portrait is a cult image more recognizable than most Hollywood celebrities. Alas, the only portrait you’re likely to find of this author is a Swiss police mug-shot for some serious traffic violations, but we won’t get into that. So Comandante, you still rock!

After getting this healthy bout of exaggerated self-deprecation out of the way, I have to say that I wouldn’t be seen dead on that Norton 500 piece of junkyard crap you were riding. What were you thinking, comrade? And what am I doing talking to a dead man anyway?

But they say that everything happens for a good reason. I don’t know who ‘they’ are, but I know that where it happens has a good reason too, and that Che Guevara was meant to have his revolutionary baptism observing the social inequities in South America, and not anywhere else. This theory of ‘geographical destiny’ was first relayed to me a few years ago by my brother-in-law, Sami, when in a unique moment of revelation he understood why, out of all places, God chose to send Muhammad to the smoldering deserts of Arabia.

We were driving in my car up to a restaurant near Megève in the French Alps one beautiful summer day when the angel of lucidity came unto Sami. Surrounded by an orgy of colors amidst breathtaking scenery and waterfalls coming out of rocks, he saw God’s wisdom in the choice of venue 14 centuries ago. He theorized that Muhammad, peace be upon him, would have preached on deaf ears had he promised the locals of this magnificent landscape that awaiting them were luscious gardens underneath which rivers flow. That’s why it had to be the unforgiving terrains of Hijaz where the vision of Heaven and Hell would resonate the loudest (his ‘theory of relativity of Paradise’ continued on the questionable allure of beautiful ‘Huris’ for the faithful French males, but you got the idea).

Likewise, I would say, had Che Guevara wandered in the Utopian Swiss countryside instead, he would have probably lived on to become a good doctor, had a wife and a few kids, maybe a Labrador named Fidel, two weeks of holiday per year, a station wagon, and a mortgage – with no destructive grudges against capitalism or any other ism, and not even a small footnote in history. Whose face would have then adorned the walls of students’ rooms the world over? Mine? I doubt it. Thus, everything happens for a good reason.

I think the reason communist regimes in Europe collapsed like a house of cards has something to do with Sami’s theory on God’s sticks and carrots. Communism failed not because capitalism is necessarily a good thing, but because communism is so much worse. The tyrannical apparatus of Soviet rule deprived people of the natural human yearning for earthly pleasures without giving them any metaphysical incentives in return; there were no afterlife rewards as compensation because communists did not believe in God. And since life under the Soviets sucked anyway, the people who were starved of both material and spiritual satisfaction realized what raw hand they were dealt and embraced capitalism in droves.

What will come next is anyone’s guess, as humanity is yet to witness the next level in the evolution of liberal democracies. Take that, Fukuyama, for a world view from a bike. The end of history? Far from it; it’s only just begun.

I would say that if capitalism does have any virtues, then one spectacular aspect has to be the marvelous invention of William Harley and Arthur Davidson (if Che had tried one of today’s models, perhaps he would have softened up a little on his legacy of uncompromising rage, which apparently he owes to being able to ride the capitalist product in the first place). It is indeed a matchless experience, an almost spiritual journey, to roam the wilderness in these machines. Perhaps it’s the only chance one can find these days – unless you own an airplane – to escape from the rat race and meditate about the meaning of life without having to sit still in a yoga position (maybe because one is closest to instantly becoming minced meat on a motorcycle that this contemplative feeling of walking on the edge of life is omnipresent during these rides).

Perhaps that is also why religion tops my list of subjects during such reflective moments. For example, I always found the fundamental Christian notion of the Trinity to be profoundly mystical, yet not readily self-explanatory. Christians themselves do actually concede that it is not the easiest concept to explain or comprehend. Yet, never has understanding this philosophical matrix presented itself more urgently in my mind than during watching the Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson’s superbly executed masterpiece.

Since the first sign of agony appeared on the face of Jesus, I could not stop asking myself countless questions about the role-changing mechanism within the Trinity between the Father and the Son. Not allowing these questions to ruin the pleasure of this great movie, I just kept wondering when is James Caviezel’s character a helpless, overpowered human Jesus, screeching in agony – and when can he become an almighty God, capable of infinitely miraculous deeds? For example, when can Jesus decide to use his Godly powers to cure and heal wounds (as he miraculously did to one of the disciples during Jesus’ violent capture by the Romans), and when is he incapable of healing other wounds, or even comforting his own devastated mother and stopping the flood of tears pouring down her face?

In other words, who sets the mode, as it were, for this Clark Kent/Superman transformation? I craved to find out during the movie because, like all viewers compulsively immersed in the tragedy, I just wanted Jesus to use any powers he had to stop or ease the unspeakable suffering inflicted upon him by these sadist torturers. Most pressing of all, I wondered whom was Jesus addressing when he cried out from the Cross, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me”? If Jesus is the Lord, who had forsaken whom?

I ask these questions not to belittle or undermine the faith of billions of people; far from it. I do so, first of all, in a sincere attempt to understand. But second and more important, I ask because I can, for I learned from experience that Christians are more tolerant when it comes to debating the pillars of their faith. They go out of their way to make you understand. So, knowing that I will not have my head chopped off, I figured, surely the God of mercy who forgave the crucifiers of Christ will find it in Him to tolerate the harmless ponderings of a curious biker.

Out on the road, such fleeting reflections are in any case frequently interrupted by the salutes of fellow bikers. For the uninitiated, this is one of the most intriguing traditions amongst the community of motorcycle owners. Whenever and wherever they cross each other’s paths, bikers invariably make a subtle saluting gesture with their left hand as a greeting signal. At first, I felt awkward, somewhat childish, waving to complete strangers on the road. But in no time it became second nature, even protocol, to join in with this most fascinating phenomenon. I personally find it to be as such because here you have people who’d never met before, but who have nevertheless developed a remarkable code of friendly etiquette that makes them identify with each other in a refreshing spirit of pride and comradeship. We are not talking here about Hell’s Angels or other organized groups, but simply anyone riding a motorcycle, be it a racing Ducati or a cruising Harley. The fact that even I, to whom closed fraternities were never appealing, now enthusiastically do it proves how humans have a predisposition to want to belong to something, to be part of a tribe, a political party or a sports team, and how easy it is to get them to conform to certain rituals distinguishing their group from the rest. When you think about it, it does sound silly, but at least it is completely harmless and does not involve any secret handshakes or further Masonic connotations. Better a group of road users who unassumingly greet each other than suspicious ones who curse and use other finger gestures, don’t you think?

I have to say that I owe my navigational familiarity around the most scenic rides in the Geneva wine country to my friend and fellow biker, Walid, who was able to convince me, with some hardship, of the motto, “it’s not the destination, it’s the ride”. Now I’m taking this maxim to new levels, as wandering aimlessly and getting completely lost never felt so gratifying. I seriously never thought I would ever derive so much pleasure from actually reaching a junction in a road and taking the exit I never took before, the one which I have absolutely no idea where it would lead. The thrill is in finding out for yourself. And speaking of wine country, it is charming to observe on these escapades just how much land Europeans dedicate to the industry of intoxication. Passing each vineyard selling happiness to the world, you imagine each bottle, each toast, each cork, each anniversary, each dinner, each celebration, and of course, each hangover that came out of these grapes, you can almost smell the tipsiness oozing from these generous lands.

Actually, one of the main delights of these directionless, open-ended rides is indeed the incredible varieties of striking aromas that you come across while breathing air that had not passed through human nostrils before. In the same sense that listening to certain old songs or tunes often takes you on a trip down memory lane, I discovered that certain scents have a more powerful effect of evoking specific moments in your past and bringing them back as if they were reenacted right before your very nose. Some of the memories you will vividly recognize, others will smell so familiar, yet remain enigmatic, like an odorous déjà vu if you like. They remind you of something but you can’t tell what it is. The human mind is after all a very complex database of stored memories, and the sense of smell is one of the most effective recollectors of these buried archives. My friend, Muthanna, aptly demonstrated this fact one day when he spotted an orange tree in a garden shop outside Geneva, blossoming on the first days of spring. As he drew his face close to its flowers, he closed his eyes and sniffed, “now I am in our orange grove in Tulkarem. I’m in Palestine”.

We had to get there, sooner or later I suppose, as all Arab roads lead not to Rome but to Palestine, the land that nothing will be left of soon except for, literally, whiffs of smoke and gunfire, or fragrant memories of orange blossom. The only thing that was missing during Yasser Arafat’s death in November 2004 was the voice of Edward Said, to put everything in perspective and make sense of the nonsensical as he so accustomed us to doing. Arafat spent his career grooming corruption and stifling integrity, surrounding himself with unscrupulous characters, while in the process, gradually deforming and debasing one of the most righteous causes in history. When he was finally killed by a mysterious blood platelets disorder that, according to his personal doctors, can only be caused by sophisticated poisoning, none of his supposedly loyal entourage cared to even seriously investigate the cause of his death. But the ultimate scandal took place before he died and was too much to bear. His closest henchmen were supplying cement to build the final tombstone of the Palestinian struggle, the catastrophic separation wall that isolates farmers from their lands, families from their backyards, and children from their schools. I always tell people that this cement story is so inconceivably disgraceful it is like imagining David Ben Gurion supplying bricks to build Auschwitz. Arafat hand-picked these merchants of depravity, empowered them, set them loose and covered up for their immeasurable corruption. When he was finally betrayed and killed, they lacked the honor to even ask who killed him. But they were his own stubborn choice. Did I already say that everything happens for a reason? May he and all of us rest in peace.

What a journey it had been. Take care, and if you ride, do it safely.