Don't be disingenuous Fruity. What you want to do is imply that every Muslim who isn't vocally condemning child marriage (in the time they have left over from condemning FGM, condemning blowing up Russell Square tube station and all the rest) is somehow complicit in, or at least turning a blind eye to, a shocking crime.
Child marriage is a fringe doctrine amongst the fringiest of the Muslim (and Sikh, and Hindu, and other sub-continent cultural groups) community. The evidence you have for the involvement of imams is sketchy (forced marriage is a criminal offence, and the CPS are slavering at the bit on such cases, so the lack of prosecutions is a case of the gun that didn't smoke) and so far as is known, the main channel for forced marriage is moving children overseas, often in the school holidays. Yes, parents who force their children into marriage are criminal abusers. And Tracey Connelly was a criminal abuser when she killed her son, too, but no-one sane is screaming "we are all guilty" or "white Londoners must all condemn this".
Let's spell this out. To identify something which is associated with a small part of a particular community and then to claim that everyone in that community needs to "take a stand" or "stand up and be counted" or "condemn rather than remain quiet" or whatever, is straightforwardly racist. It's essentialising: it's implying that anyone who is from a similar background has more in common (by virtue of that background) than they have different (through not being a terrorist/child abuser/etc). What next: "should Stevie Wonder condemn knife crime in Newham?"