In his speech in Cairo today, Barack Obama said the "cycle of suspicion and discord" between the United States and the Muslim world must end. The speech explored the relationship between the state and religious belief. The challenge is to find a theory of peaceful co-existence between the state and its call for loyalty and religion's call for loyalty to itself.

It's an age-old problem of course: in many ancient cultures heads of state often claimed to be God themselves. So when someone started saying that the head of state was not God and, furthermore, that there was no higher authority than God, the ruler was going to see it as a challenge to his authority.

The same problem exists today, albeit in an altered form. We don't have a head of state who claims to be God, but there are some voices in the public square who are deeply suspicious of people of faith – particularly, if we're honest, Christians and Muslims. In one sense that concern is not unreasonable. There are some Christians (although very few, and almost restricted entirely to the US) who are actively seeking to implement their interpretation of the Bible and of Mosaic law. At the same time, there is very visible evidence that the goal of Islamic governance is being actively pursued by some Muslims.

So what is this way forward? In a new Theos report, I have called for a "two-tier theory" and argue that for peaceful co-existence to be facilitated, two dynamics need to be in play: firstly, the state should not demand more of its citizens than is reasonable. Of course the state has a right to expect loyalty from the people it protects and administers, and people of faith need to recognise that. But the state cannot have the right to claim exclusive "mono-loyalty". It is not reasonable for any state to argue that there needs to be one loyalty only and insist that a choice be made between it or a person's religion.

Secondly, people of faith need to acknowledge with gratitude the work of the state, but moreover, need also to acknowledge the fact that, in a remarkable way, they are spiritually "British" as well as being "simply" a Christian, Jew, Muslim or Hindu. Having travelled extensively outside Europe, I've realised through conversation that British Christians interpret biblical passages and doctrines differently from the way Indian or African Christians interpret the same passages. The same is true of the Qur'an. These legitimate differences cannot simply be laid at the door of differing translation; rather they can be explained by the fact that people of faith read their scriptures through a cultural lens. The most obvious example of this is the lens of a more individualist culture vs a more communal culture.

This observation informs my concern about the inauguration of the new helpline for Muslims: it's not the idea of a helpline specifically for Muslims that troubles me. It is the fact that the answers to the questions they are getting are not coming from inside Britain; they are coming from al-Azhar University in Cairo.

There have been many Muslim thinkers who have engaged with questions of loyalty in ways that are very relevant to the Muslim population of this country: it is the pursuit of a "British spiritually" that will facilitate effective integration.

There does not have to be tension between faith and state. Both may have historical reasons for suspicion, but the past does not have to be a barrier to the future.