Wouldn’t it be “Islamophobic” to doubt him? Canadian authorities under the authority of “Islamophobia” czar Amira Elghawaby should order the relevant officials to apologize for arresting this hero.
“Suspected YVR hijacker claimed to be ‘messenger of Allah’ sent to ‘save humanity from climate change,'” by Jarryd Jäger, Western Standard, July 17, 2025:
It has been revealed that the man suspected of stealing a plane in Victoria and flying it to Vancouver described himself as a “messenger of Allah” sent to “save humanity from climate change.”
Shaheer Cassim was arrested shortly after touching down at YVR on Tuesday and subsequently charged with hijacking, which under Canada’s criminal code could implicate him in terrorism.
“I am a messenger of Allah,” Cassim wrote in a Facebook post less than 24 hours before allegedly taking to the skies. “I am the messiah sent to save humanity from climate change and usher in an era of world peace.”
He went on to suggest that “the Arctic sea ice is going to disappear within two years,” and that, “when that happens, huge amounts of methane are going to erupt from the Arctic Ocean, triggering abrupt runaway global warming, turning Earth into Venus.”
“Humans will go extinct within the first few years,” Cassim warned. “We must begin geoengineering immediately to stabilize the Arctic ice sheet and prevent human extinction. People of the world, mobilize. Mobilize now!”
He claimed that “the angel Gabriel appeared before me and gave me a message from Allah.”…
Big Dude says
The pilot of a new serial called Only Gd knows…
Coming to a protest near you
Peacelover says
Ah,he’ll be a ‘hero’ to idiot lefties
Alkflaeda says
His claim is as credible as that of his prophet (i.e., it isn’t). If Greta Thunberg converts to Islam out of solidarity for the Palestinian Arabs, the two of them could marry….
࿗Infidel࿘ says
He looks like he’s picked up the baton from Greta. After all, even Greta has stopped agitating against climate change and is instead now obsessed w/ the Palestinians. Maybe he could bring her back
And you are right – the two of them could marry, but since, as I point out below, he’s claiming to be a new prophet, she needn’t even convert to islam: she could convert to his newfound sect. Question is whether they’d have any kids, who would only add the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere
OLD GUY says
Hope they use a condom,
John Jake says
– “Amira Elghawaby is an Egyptian-born Canadian journalist, communications professional, and human rights activist. She was appointed as Canada’s first Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia in January 2023.” –
Any Canadian with an ounce of self respect should be embarrassed at this point if they identify as a Canadian.
James Lincoln says
Question for Shaheer Cassim:
How does stealing a plane in Victoria and flying it to Vancouver “save humanity from climate change”???
Year’s back, I use to fly one of those Cessna 172’s – and they all run on 100LL (low lead) gasoline…
Okay I forgot: there is no logic in islam.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
James
My favorite part of our new prophet’s claims are that the Arctic Ocean would cease to exist (presumably like the Aral Sea) and that all that methane would appear in its stead. I would assume that if it melts, those temperatures would also melt Nunavat, NorthWest Territories and Russia’s Arctic coast, making them more habitable
Also, methane – CH4 – would be a far cleaner fuel just like LNG is a lot cleaner than plain coal. Since there’s more water vapor being generated than CO2, and that does not have the same greenhouse effect as CO2 does. That’s assuming that once that hypothetical methane is released, that it will instantly burn, rather than simply dissipate into the air
James Lincoln says
Infidel,
Thanks for your reply – and added information.
Brian Reid says
Infidel
Just to put you straight on your comment.
97 per-cent of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour. High altitude clouds reflect heat back into space and low altitude clouds trap heat beneath them. All other gases total 3 per-cent. CO2 is a useless greenhouse gas which is heavier than air so constantly trying to fall out of the sky. Their is no correlation between CO2 and temperature and never has been for the last 600 million years. 10-12 thousand years ago the last ice age ended and the planet rapidly warmed with the lowest CO2 levels for over 600 million years. Why? Methane on the other hand is 28 times more effective a greenhouse gas than CO2 but only lasts for a maximum of 10 years in the atmosphere before breaking down into water vapour and CO2. CO2 is plant food, what use is it to plants at 30,000 feet. Don’t believe the bollocks from the idiots on TV or you will be telling me next that Islam is the religion of peace!!
Wellington says
All on point. I would add that in the midst of the Paleozoic Era (c.580-220 million years ago) the Earth went through a far more extensive ice age than the one that began “a short time” ago, i.e. the most recent ice age from as early as 1.8 million years ago when the Earth started cooling down to around 10,000 years ago, replete with several glaciations and interglacial “warm-ups” (are we now in another interglacial period?). During this Paleozoic ice age CO2 levels were 8 to 10 times higher than they are now. So, we had a major ice age with much higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere “way back then.”
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Brian
Thanks for the clarification. In other words, water vapor is a greenhouse gas that has a positive effects and prevents atmospheric overheating, as opposed to something like CO2, which would have to receive the heat first before it could trap it. Yeah, I do know that CO2 is plant food, and therefore more effective on the ground than at 30,000 feet
No, I’m no believer in global warming any more than I am in islam. Climate change is just a rebranding of the same hoax once they saw how cold global warming was making us
Brian Reid says
Hello Infidel
This is a subject like Islam, the more you delve into it the more complicated it gets. For instance once you realise that Mecca did not exist at the time of Mohammed [ no water so no people ] therefore no Mohammed so the entire religion is just a load of bollocks. I would not call water vapour a greenhouse gas.
A planet temperature regulator would be a better description. The warmer it gets the more evaporation occurs so the more reflection of heat back into space. The colder it gets the opposite occurs.
In the Sahara desert with no water vapour, at night it regularly drops to below freezing yet during the day it is back up to 45 degrees C. The CO2 is not doing a lot of heat trapping, if any is it.
If you don’t believe in global warming then you must be prepared to argue with a thermometer.
The question you should ask is ” if their were no humans on the planet would the temperature be any different today than it is?” We have officially been in an Ice age for the last 3 million years. In that time we have swung from warm periods to cold periods around 28 times or every 100-110 thousand years. In Britain 150 thousand years ago we had Hippo’s wallowing in the River Thames sea levels were 26ft higher than today, we had a climate similar to current Med climate. 15 thousand years ago with similar CO2 levels we were in the depths of, I will call it a mini ice age with a mile of ice above Birmingham.
We came out of that ice age and the temperatures rose rapidly with the lowest CO2 levels in this planets history, the question is why. What happens when you come out of an ice age, obviously the trend is a rise in temperature, which is what is happening. Whether you drive a Dodge Charger or a Tesla will make no difference what so ever. In fact if you calculate the gas emissions produced making a Tesla you could travel a few 10s of thousand miles in your Charger before you were equal. The climate change due to your greenhouse gas emissions is political and as accurate as Mecca being a fertile land in the desert a major trade centre where some bloke called Mohammed lived.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Brian
Thank you for your explanation. Very well put
I do agree w/ you, as well as Dr Jay Smith that Muhammad never existed, and neither did Mecca. Also, agree w/ RS that islam was put together in the 9-10th centuries by the Abbasids at Baghdad. Of course, that does throw into question a lot of other things, such as the timings of the derivative Mongol empires’ becoming Turkic and converting to islam, and so on
Brian Reid says
Infidel
One question which I would love an answer to is :- What language were the the bits of the soon to become a Koran did John of Damascus refer to in the AD 730s ? If you had an English speaking prophet and his bible was then produced in French and finally ended up as the original in Spanish that’s how you would know it was the perfect book, yes!!
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Brian
Glad to change subjects, since I’m admittedly much less of an expert on “climate change” than on islamic history
I know that in his book “Did Muhammad exist?”, Robert gave dedicated attention to the languages of the qur’an. Yeah, that’s one aspect of the story, but partly b’cos I’m not a linguist, I have been focusing on the history of the conquests, and certain things that didn’t make sense for that era
According to the conventional history, after the death of Muhammad, Arab armies set out from Mecca and went directly to Damascus, defeated a Byzantine army at Yarmouk and occupied Damascus. It then turned its attention towards Jerusalem and Ctesiphon
Now, imagine you’re leading an army from London to Birmingham, and also plan to conquer Northamton. The latter is on the way: why would you first conquer Birmingham and then turn your attention to Norhants? Wouldn’t the logical course be to first conquer the latter and then the former?
Remember, when the Arabs supposedly set off from Medina to Damascus, this was the that era when there were no Medina-Damascus railways: that was built centuries later by the Ottomans. So we’re supposed to believe that a ragtag bunch of camel archers set off from Medina, went to Damascus, and at a place somewhere near today’s Jordan-Syria border, they trounced the Byzantine army and occupied Damascus, and nobody seemingly had a problem? If anything, a Byzantine army relatively fresh at this place so close to Damascus should have been able to easily trounce this Medinan army, just given the relative energy of both sides
That was what interested me in knowing what Damascus exactly was like when it was supposedly invaded. Apparently, there was a theological dispute b/w the local Syrian population, who seemed to believe in a Monophysite version of Christianity, vs the court at Constantinople, which was Orthodox. So that place was already in rebellion, and since both the Byzantines and the Sassanids were exhausted by their endless wars w/ each other, it wouldn’t have taken much effort for the local Syrians to rebel, become independent and then start their conquests
Based on that, as well as the Syraic evidence of these texts, I concluded that the Umayyads were indeed native to Damascus, and neither islam nor the qur’an existed when they started their rebellion and conquests. If one assumes that, then the subsequent fall of Jerusalem and Ctesiphon makes much more sense. The Umayyads rebelled, and rather than let the Byzantines surround them, or the Sassanids take advantage of the situation, they seized the initiative and quickly overran Canaan, Iran and then Egypt, and continued until they could be stopped
In that scenario, the things that Robert and Jay Smith have described make perfect sense – the crosses on the Umayyad coins, the references to Christ in the al Aqsa “mosque”, the first mosques pointing towards Petra and everything else. Arabia was probably conquered later as an afterthought, and the story of the Rashiduns used to backfill the pre-Umayyad history. That conquest would have been as easy as a conquest of Siberia, given that next to nobody lived there
All that said, it does open up new cans of worms, such as questions about when did various parts of the Arab empire actually islamize? For instance, the demolition of temples of the non-islamic faiths in the Arab empire may have started early eg Mahmoud of Ghazni’s demolition of hundreds of Hindu temples, but the building of mosques over them happened much later in history. Similarly, a lot of stories about the islamization of that empire that we normally read about, such as Central Asia, would probably have happened much later than claimed
Nonetheless, historical facts are the basis on which I believe that Muhammad didn’t exist, and this Arab conquest started in Damascus, not Medina
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Brian
Glad to change subjects, since I’m admittedly much less of an expert on “climate change” than on islamic history
I know that in his book “Did Muhammad exist?”, Robert gave dedicated attention to the languages of the qur’an. Yeah, that’s one aspect of the story, but partly b’cos I’m not a linguist, I have been focusing on the history of the conquests, and certain things that didn’t make sense for that era
According to the conventional history, after the death of Muhammad, Arab armies set out from Mecca and went directly to Damascus, defeated a Byzantine army at Yarmouk and occupied Damascus. It then turned its attention towards Jerusalem and Ctesiphon
Now, imagine you’re leading an army from London to Birmingham, and also plan to conquer Northamton. The latter is on the way: why would you first conquer Birmingham and then turn your attention to Norhants? Wouldn’t the logical course be to first conquer the latter and then the former?
Remember, when the Arabs supposedly set off from Medina to Damascus, this was the that era when there were no Medina-Damascus railways: that was built centuries later by the Ottomans. So we’re supposed to believe that a ragtag bunch of camel archers set off from Medina, went to Damascus, and at a place somewhere near today’s Jordan-Syria border, they trounced the Byzantine army and occupied Damascus, and nobody seemingly had a problem? If anything, a Byzantine army relatively fresh at this place so close to Damascus should have been able to easily trounce this Medinan army, just given the relative energy of both sides
That was what interested me in knowing what Damascus exactly was like when it was supposedly invaded. Apparently, there was a theological dispute b/w the local Syrian population, who seemed to believe in a Monophysite version of Christianity, vs the court at Constantinople, which was Orthodox. So that place was already in rebellion, and since both the Byzantines and the Sassanids were exhausted by their endless wars w/ each other, it wouldn’t have taken much effort for the local Syrians to rebel, become independent and then start their conquests
Based on that, as well as the Syraic evidence of these texts, I concluded that the Umayyads were indeed native to Damascus, and neither islam nor the qur’an existed when they started their rebellion and conquests. If one assumes that, then the subsequent fall of Jerusalem and Ctesiphon makes much more sense. The Umayyads rebelled, and rather than let the Byzantines surround them, or the Sassanids take advantage of the situation, they seized the initiative and quickly overran Canaan, Iran and then Egypt, and continued until they could be stopped
In that scenario, the things that Robert and Jay Smith have described make perfect sense – the crosses on the Umayyad coins, the references to Christ in the al Aqsa “mosque”, the first mosques pointing towards Petra and everything else. Arabia was probably conquered later as an afterthought, and the story of the Rashiduns used to backfill the pre-Umayyad history. That conquest would have been as easy as a conquest of Siberia, given that next to nobody lived there
All that said, it does open up new cans of worms, such as questions about when did various parts of the Arab empire actually islamize? For instance, the demolition of temples of the non-islamic faiths in the Arab empire may have started early eg Mahmoud of Ghazni’s demolition of hundreds of Hindu temples, but the building of mosques over them happened much later in history. Similarly, a lot of stories about the islamization of that empire that we normally read about, such as Central Asia, would probably have happened much later than claimed
Nonetheless, historical facts are the basis on which I believe that Muhammad didn’t exist, and this Arab conquest started in Damascus, not Medina
Brian Reid says
Infidel
How about another theory which ties into yours.
1/ In Yemen in 570AD it was conquered by the Persians. What a coincidence, the same year that Moh was supposedly born.
2/ In the 620s the Sasanian’s took over after converting to Islam, which had not yet been invented.
3/ In the 630s they had an army of say 25,000 men and marched up the coast of Saudi Arabia.
4/ They passed a tiny little village called Mecca which had a very interesting black stone.
5/ They refuelled in Medina and carried on passing Jerusalem because that was a walled city which would have meant a long siege.
6/ They met up with some other Sassanids and defeated the Romans who by that time were in serious decline hence the ease of taking over the whole of North Africa and Spain.
7/ History is always written by the victors.
8/ If you are inventing a prophet it is handy if he comes from somewhere no one has ever heard of, wait until anyone who was about at the time is dead. Build an aqueduct a resting place for Moh and spend many happy hours kissing and rubbing yourself up a black stone while calling everyone else idolaters.
9/ Why choose Mecca if everyone came from north of Jordan and the reverence shown to the Saudi Arabs?
Just a theory, just as well they did not bother with Birmingham, it is already done!
It has not half gone down hill since it had a mile of ice above it.
Could have used the M1 / M6 if they had not invented trains!
Pull the above to pieces if you like we are all trying to learn and find out the truth.
Might as well enjoy the process.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Only problem: the Sassanids already had a religion of their own – Zoroastrianism. Why would they invent a new one, and that too, one that made Arabs, rather than themselves, the master race?
Brian Reid says
Yemen was Jewish, Christian, Jewish, Christian in the 500s. The Persians appeared in 570 however their is no mention of any new religion. The area appeared to be split up into several tribes controlling their own areas.
In the 620s they appeared to unite under a new religion. Their is mention of Yemen tribes taking part in the conquest of Egypt and North Africa. Where did they come from? How did they suddenly appear? Arabia is/was a vast desert at the time as you suggest like Siberia. Yemen was well populated has rain, is fertile, they even built dam’s in the 500s to collect water. All ancient accounts say the invaders came out of Arabia and the writings to the pope after the fall of Jerusalem call them Haggerist a form of Christianity where Jesus was referred to as the MHMD. The Romans had tried to conquer Yemen but were defeated. Aden in Yemen was described as a major trading centre even BC. Where else would an army strong enough to defeat 50,000 Roman soldiers at Yarmouk come from?
I don’t believe any General worth his salt would have tried to take Jerusalem which relied on its walls for protection before defeating the Romans in Damascus. Once they did that Jerusalem was there’s anyway. .Remember Jerusalem opened its gates to let them in because once the Romans were defeated it was pointless resisting.
Wellington says
Doubly wrong.
somehistory says
The only “message” this goon might receive from Gabriel….or any angel….would be to let him know he is on the path to destruction. And it won’t come by any “climate change,” or “melting ice.”
To call himself “Messiah” is so demonically foul as to warrant a visit to a pig-filled woodshed for a workout.,…,and a slopping of the hogs.
“sowing….reaping”….”the earth is ripe.”
Brian Ozzy says
Well if Mo could call himself a Messiah then anyone should be applicable as long as they are a misogynistic, homicidal psychopath.
somehistory says
I guess that’s true, but it’s still demonic, still disgusting, and everyone claiming it is a liar….as well as the things you write.
JS says
Ugh… such morons.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Doesn’t Shaheer Cassim know that if climate change happens, it’s the will of allah? How dare he question the will of allah! Who does he think he is – Muhammad?
Incidentally, if he claims to be the messenger of allah, then he’s violating the islamic doctrine that Muhammad is the seal of the prophets, which puts him in the same category as Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani and Bahatullah. Maybe Canada could extradite him to Pakistan or Syria, so that they can give him a shariah punishment. After all, Canada wouldn’t wanna look islamophobic, would they?
memi says
George Grant’s “Lament for a Nation” should be reprinted with a new chapter on “Canada’s Islamophobia threat” and given to Canadian PM Carney on his birthday.
Canada has an “Islamophobia” Czar Amira Elghawaby, but where are the appointments for the anti-Semitism Czar, the Christianophobic Czar and the Hinduphobic Czars? Jewish Girls’ Schools are under gunshots by Islamists, churches are being destroyed and Sikh terrorists (as if Islamist terrorists in India and Canada are not enough) bring down Indian Flight 182 with bomb placed in Montreal killing 300 Canadians and Indians.
Canada should stop supporting terrorists, be more democratic and appoint the anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and Hinduphobia Czars ASAP. And “Prophet Muhammad’s environmentalist messenger”, Shaheer Cassim, should get a one-way ticket to Damascus or Islamabad (his choice) to marry Greta in Holy Sharia matrimony.