It seems that the allegations were not true.

I don't get that impression from the article.  The allegations were not proven, the allegations were withdrawn by the media conglomerate, but the only people who know if the allegations are true are Islam's manager and the unnamed reporter.

I'm not for the rights of the media to make false allegations, including against Muslims.  [I'm also not for the right to stiff cab-drivers, including Muslims, including cab-drivers "from the Hijaz".]  As long as we invite them into Dar al-Harb, which we shouldn't do, we need to afford them the same rights and protections that infidels enjoy.  Those rights and protections are powerful, and can be used as powerful weapons by a group that has malevolent intentions, which is one reason we need to be heedful about who we invite to join our societies.

I would go this far: the media conglomerate should not make any allegations that it is not willing to back up if true.

The allegations were not proven

But if the allegation was that he doesn't talk to women apart from his wife, that is clearly disproven - by the Dolly Parton thing alone.

Yes, the general issue of Muslims abusing our laws is valid, but in this case I'm not sure it's something to get that bothered about.

There's free speech and there's making stuff up.

Newspapers - our tabloids anyway - print stories that sail close to the wind, knowing that they may get sued for libel. The publicity does neither party any harm, when it's a celebrity at least. It's the ordinary person who suffers from tabloid attacks.

This is a world away from the Ehrenfeld or Harry's Place case, where an effort is being made to tell the truth in the public interest ("fair comment" - another defence to libel).

clearly disproven - by the Dolly Parton thing alone

There'll always be a place for influential dozy bints in the entertainment superstar jihadi's limousine.  It is possible that Islam (the person) as a rule does not interact with women other than his wife, including lowly female entertainment reporters, but does work, perhaps even with a winsome smile, with a useful woman who can advance the cause of Islam (the ideology).

This case is not in the same category as Harry's Place;  it lies in that more subtle category of news organisations that allow considerations other than strict adherence to the truth to guide their coverage (or lack thereof).  See the fawning treatment CNN reporters give jihadis in order to get access to the story;  see France 2's reliance on "Palestinian" stringers to provide their coverage of the jihad against Israel.  Either Islam's manager said this, or he didn't.  But that truth is irrelevant when the decision to drop it is made on economic or other grounds.

But that's okay, you're free to get worked up, or not, at your discretion.