Absolutely not: if I were born in Saudi Arabia, reality would be incoherent.
The only things that can happen are the things God has willed to cause to happen. If these things did not happen, it would only be because God willed not to cause them to happen. God only causes that which He prefers to cause, so for Him to have caused other than what He has caused, He would have to prefer other than what He prefers.
However, He is who He is, and He cannot deny Himself (Exodus 3:14; 2 Timothy 2:13).
If He preferred the negation of what He prefers, He would not be who He is. He would be a different God -- a contradictory one.
Were I born in Saudi Arabia, God would not be God, rather He would be NOT-God. NOT-God is not capable of creating a coherent reality, as NOT-God is incapable of being absolutely perfect, since God is definitively absolutely perfect. Remove any of His characteristics, turn Him into NOT-God, and whatever is left is lacking.
NOT-God would be clearly incapable of universally making correct decisions, as evidenced by his choice to have me born in Saudi Arabia, when in the perfect and correct plan I would have been born in Virginia. As one incapable of universally making correct decisions, He would be incapable of defining actual correctness. With correctness undefined, everything that depends upon correctness would likewise be undefined. Knowledge itself would be impossible, and reality would therefore be incoherent.
No one would be defending anything if I were born in Saudi Arabia, for no assertion would have a "correct" meaning and without assertions there would be nothing to defend. The one true God would not be; and the one true God (exactly as He is) is necessary for anything to be coherent.
But perhaps the intended question was something more along the lines of "are most Christians the children of Christians, and most Muslims the children of Muslims?"
If this is the intended meaning behind the question, I admit I have never thoroughly investigated whether or not this is the case, but it seems like a reasonable assumption and I have no particular reason to doubt it. But I sense from the way the question was phrased that this is somehow supposed to act as an argument against Christianity, and I fail to see how it gains any ground toward that end.
God is in control of everything, including which nations people are born into (Acts 17:26). However, lest someone think that being born into a Muslim family is a justifiable excuse to deny the one true God, the God of the Bible, the Bible itself rejects this reasoning. As Romans 1:20 explains, "since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."
While it may be easier to commit murder when you are surrounded by murderers, and easier to reject the one true God when surrounded by others who do likewise, neither behavior is excused.