I'm looking for a general description and neutral assessment of pluralist legal systems, in which different rules apply to different (non-territorial) 'subnationalities' for some specific topics, while all are cititzens and are treated equally for the application of the general rules outside those topics.

The different non-territorial 'subnationalities' are generally religious communities but sometimes the difference is between autochtone and colonial/immigrant communities.

The topics governed by different rules generally are "personal status", descendence (recognition, adoption), marriage and divorce, intrafamilial obligation (husband-wife, parent-child), inheritance, sometimes also land (religious trust like waqf, native title,...)

Questions I want answerend:

1. What are relevant countries: Lebanon, Israel, Turks in Greece, India, Pakistan? Indonesia? Malaysia? Mayotte till recently, New Caledonia,... and what are the topics covered there by different rules?

2. How does the state treat following problems:

a) How to categorise everyone? e.g. child of mixed origin, orphan brought up in other group, foundling, immigrant, faithless, ...Is change or conversion possible? (Is there a 'third' neutral or residuary category and set of rules?)

What about mixed problems? Are mixed marriages possible?

-> I think the categorisation is mostly self-evident (if not self-designation), dubious cases are rare. These issues are similar with problems treated by international 'conflict of laws' or private international law, where (up to a point) you can not choose your nationality and mixed cases are rare but do occur.

b) Who applies and interprets the rules? Who administers justice? (religious courts?) Can those judgements be challenged in state secular courts on procedural grounds? (compare with arbitral award challenged in court)

c) Can the rules be changed? If the religious rules are accepted as having divine origin, they cannot be changed by 'mortals'. This seems to me the most problematic issue (democracy) but it is conceivable to let the state (democratically legitimised) legislate in those areas (India : Hindu Code bills 1955-56).

d) Can the rules be challenged in state courts on secular grounds like equality (man-woman), other human rights? (most serious question if the rules cannot be changed democratically) (compare with "public policy / ordre public" doctrine in private international law where the judge in extreme cases will not enforce an applicable foreign rule if it's "repugnant" to the basic values of the forum state)

?