A netfriend wrote:

Please forgive me if most of the following relates to Indonesia, but the principles are the same! [snip]

[Can a Muslim be religious and an American?] Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon God of Arabia.

Friend:

Christians in Indonesia use “Allah” alongside the Malay “Tuhan” [which is also used by the Hindu Balinese, for example]. Last year, when a local evangelist insisted that “Allah” was not an appropriate name – that the Muslim deity was a completely different god to the Christian one – the Indonesian Union of Churches came down very strongly, pointing out that the Christian use of the name “Allah” had been a very important bridge between Indonesian and Muslim Christians over the years, and the reason why Indonesian Muslims had been open to the gospel, in a way that Muslims in other countries hadn’t.

“God” of course is an Anglo-Saxon word that was adopted by Christians despite its baggage.

My Irani Muslim friends have always spoken of “God” with me, never of “Allah”, though in Farsi of course, they continue to use “Allah”.

Don Richardson has said, “Any theological vacuum surrounding any culture’s concept of God is not an obstacle to the gospel – it’s an opportunity!” [“Redemptive Analogy”, p 402 “Perspectives on the World Christian Movement”]

[snip]

Original:

Socially, no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Friend:

The Qu’ran does indeed forbid friendship with Christians and Jews. So if devout Muslims are friends with ‘kafir, unbelievers’ there is a tension or a rationalisation, a common enough human practice! This tension and/or rationalisation would also apply to most of the other points raised here.

The following was posted on the Laskar Jihad website on 29/9/02, in a section entitled ‘Islamic [syariat] Law’, under a heading “Islam doesn’t prohibit making peace with the unbeliever/s, but…”:

On 29/9/02 Abu Fadhil, ‘an elder’ of the Laskar Jihad organisation, addressed a ‘socialisation program’ in Ambon, attended by several hundred people, including junior high students: “Making peace with the infidel doesn’t mean loving them, nor treating them as brothers. It only means *not* making war… Brotherhood based on the [local custom of ‘Pela and Gandong’] is contrary to the teaching of Islam [which teaches]that brotherhood is on the basis of Islamic community [alone]”.

In the same speech, he attributed his concern to the propaganda of the separatists. According to the Laskar Jihad, all Christians in Ambon were/are separatists, which is far from the truth. He went on to say:

“If the Muslim community is attacked physically, then the damage is only physical. But if the attack takes the form of propaganda, then it is religion itself that is under threat. Certainly, if the religion is destroyed, then the destruction is borne/guaranteed in this life and the next.”

Fortunately, not all Muslims in Ambon are heeding this warning, and the LJ have been disbanded and sent back to Java. But it does illustrate the problem faced by those Christians who are trying to reach out to Muslims in love. Even totally altruistic actions can be viewed with suspicion. Only prayer and God’s grace can overcome that!

[snip]

Original:

Domestically, no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).

Friend:

Fortunately not all Muslim husbands adhere to this teaching! Family life is often a stong point.

Original:

Spiritually, no. Because when we declare “one nation under God,” the Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as our heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran’s 99 excellent names.

Friend:

Love of others, as brothers in the faith, is a horizontal kind of love, not a vertical love flowing from a loving heavenly father. Experiencing the latter can be life-changing for a Muslim – or for anyone, for that matter!

~~~

And from another:

Is it possible to be a Christian Australian Patriot? I doubt it!

my off-the-cuff adaption of Rowland’s post…

Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to God, the God of Jesus Christ.

Scripturally, no. Because his allegiance is to the discipleship of Jesus Christ.

Geographically, perhaps. But it is to equate ‘blessed are the poor’ with living in the richest country in the world.

Socially, no. Because his allegiance to Christianity forbids him to make friends with Islams or Jews. (granted only applies to some Christians! – but the same can be said for the relevant islamic reference)

Politically, no. Because he must submit to the Holy Scriptures which speak of a kingdom of God over and against the kingdoms of this world – including (and especially) America and its allies!

Domestically, no. Because the Old Testament shares many culturally specific commandments (and perhaps irrelevant) commandments – we’ve all heard the more crazy sounding ones on this list.

Religiously, no. Because no other religion is accepted by his God except Christianity (Sheep and Goats!)

Intellectually, no. Because he cannot accept the American/ Constitution, Australian Common Law/Legislation since it is based on bastardized Biblical principles, and he believes the Bible should not be corrupted.