Prevailing discourse on multiculturalismi tend to focus on its merits in protecting the cultures and traditions of minority groups within the framework of the politics of accommodation. Less discussed are its implications on the rights and autonomy of members of the groups themselves who may be adversely affected by the arrangement. This paper attempts to fill the lacunae. It focuses on the problems arising from autonomy granted to the Muslim community of Singapore to determine its personal law, on some segments of the community. Unlike the rest of the citizens of Singapore, the Muslims are bound by their personal law in the domain of the family which they cannot relinquish as long as they remain Muslims. The system which began during the period of British colonial administration has remained ever since. Differences in the mechanisms as well as the orientation of social agencies in determining the Muslim law from those affecting the nonMuslims, invite unwarranted implications on the rights of Muslims, specifically. The problem is reinforced by the strong tendency of state actors to over-rely on dominant groups within the Muslim community in determining matters of Muslim law at the expense of competing ideas and orientation. The absence of choice of law for Muslims poses a predicament to those who do not wish to renounce their religion but maintain differences in perceptions of the Muslim law. This paper analyzes these problems in the arena of the Muslim law on marriage, divorce and inheritance. It also highlights how the arrangement has, in some instances, resulted in the exclusion of Muslims as a whole from the purview of specific national laws and influence policies affecting them against the preferences of the group's members. These issues have generally received scant attention, if at all, eclipsed perhaps by the greater focus on the merits of multiculturalism in protecting minority rights. Some plausible ways, in which the unwitting implications of legal pluralism on the members of the Muslim community can be addressed, taking into consideration both their right as members of the group as well as citizens of the state, are also discussed.