This hypothetical question, raised by British poet and content creator Stefan Molyneux on the "Above Authority" program aired by Al Jazeera on February 20, 2026, did not emerge from a vacuum. It serves as a key to understanding a deep crisis in international media discourse, where the language, tone, and methodology of coverage change based on the perpetrator's identity, not the severity of the crime itself.
The Identity Game: From a "Deviant Individual" to a "Representative of a Culture"
The core of this double standard lies in the mechanism of media framing. In the case of Epstein, an American billionaire of Jewish heritage, the dominant narrative framework remained focused on the "individual act," "personal deviance," and "elite corruption." The case was discussed in its context: immense wealth, political influence, human vulnerability, and judicial failure. No mainstream media discourse dared to hold "Western culture," "liberal values," or "the Jewish religion" responsible for Epstein's actions. The crime was his alone, and that was the end of it.
But if the perpetrator were Muslim, analysts and activists argue, the scene would have been turned upside down. Mainstream headlines in global newspapers would have screamed about "sexual terrorism" and the "barbarism of Islamic culture." Cameras would have panned over mosques and minarets, and analysts would have transformed into self-appointed jurists, scouring religious texts to conclude that Islam tolerates pedophilia or that Arab societies are inherently backward and disrespectful of women. The case would have shifted from a trial of a criminal to a "trial of an entire civilization," and Muslims everywhere would be placed under the microscope, implicitly guilty of a crime they did not commit.
From Washington to Paris: New "Epsteins" and the Same Brutal Methods
The program's episode was not limited to the hypothetical question. It highlighted the emergence of three new "Epsteins" in France and Brazil, running cross-continental networks for child exploitation and blackmail. Here, a common feature is starkly revealed: the same brutality, the same hidden cameras, and the same methods of control that blend sexual gratification with political and intelligence blackmail.
The episode unveils the darkest dimension of these crimes: they were not merely physical violations but prime tools for political blackmail. In atmospheres of absolute secrecy, victims—and sometimes even the criminals themselves—are forced to commit even greater violations. Recordings of these crimes are then used as leverage by intelligence agencies to blackmail politicians and influential figures.
This diabolical mechanism prompts a crucial question: If these networks were run by gangs from the Middle East, wouldn't Western analyses have linked the matter to "rogue states," "international terrorism," or a "clash of civilizations"? But today, they are simply treated as a matter of "local elite corruption."
Two-Tiered Victims: Selectivity in Defending Human Rights
The Western media machine has long adopted a discourse defending women's and children's rights, particularly when confronting Muslim societies. Isolated cases of underage marriage in remote villages are cited and generalized as "the Muslim problem." However, in the Epstein case, where underage girls were not married but sexually enslaved in luxurious mansions and private islands, the loud voices went quiet. Where were the media campaigns accusing "Western culture" of being a haven for pedophilia? Where were the calls for "radical reform" of American society? They disappeared because the victim, unfortunately, was not a suitable tool for "stigmatizing the civilizational other."
The Tools of Double Standards: Between "Framing the Crime" and "Neutralizing Identity"
The fundamental difference lies in "identity framing." In cases involving the "other" (Arab-Muslim), the "logic of generalization" is activated, where the individual becomes a representative of their entire group. In cases concerning the Western self, the "logic of exception" is employed, where identity is neutralized to protect the collective. The crime becomes an "individual failure" or a "technical glitch" that can be fixed, not a crisis of values.
This double standard extends even to judicial institutions. In Epstein's case, the debate revolves around the "failure of the judicial system" or "weak procedures." But if the accused were Arab or Muslim, the discussion would likely shift to the "nature of the political system" and its "inherent inability" to deliver justice, accompanied by implicit calls for international guardianship over the judiciary.
Justice is Indivisible
The Epstein case was not just a sex scandal; it was a true test of the universality of the values proclaimed by Western media. It revealed how standards can bend and twist depending on the perpetrator's skin color, religion, or cultural background.
The question "What if Epstein were Muslim?" is not an attempt to downplay his crime. His crime is heinous and condemnable regardless of his religion or ethnicity. Rather, it is a call to expose civilizational hypocrisy and affirm that media justice is indivisible. Either we universalize the principle of "individual responsibility" for everyone—which is the correct principle—or we admit that the standards we apply are merely selective political tools, used to criminalize the weak and absolve the powerful.