The present thesis seeks to test if, and to what extent, claims of the modern nation-state laws to exclusive dominance over other spheres are tenable and re-assesses the operation of law in society. The thesis exemplifies the living law theory by putting the spotlight on Muslim laws in England, Turkey and Pakistan and substantiates that the metanarrative discourse of modern legality is challenged by `local' cultures and their `unofficial' obligation systems. In chapter 2, a model of operation of law in society is formulated. After providing a detailed account of theoretical discussions regarding legal pluralism, chapter 2 suggests that regardless of state recognition, several laws and normative orders interact, leading to continuous reconstruction of super- hybrid laws. In chapters 3,4 and 5, theoretical discussion and hypotheses formulated in the previous chapter are applied to the socio-legal sphere. The main areas of concern are Muslim marriage and divorce and, in each chapter, a different country and legal system are analysed. In each case, it is found that there are limits to state law, that people maintain their own self-perceptions of legal affairs and that unofficial laws co-exist with official ones. Muslims redefine and reconstruct their laws unofficially even within secular frameworks and undermine and obstruct the claim of official law to have a monopoly over the socio-legal sphere as the governing law. Skilful Muslim legal navigators, as post-modern entities of the socio- legal arena, combine rules of different conflicting normative orders and reconstruct their own super-hybrid laws as law-inventing citizens. The study suggests that states should move towards developing a `supra- modern' response. This is neither a full defence of modernity, nor a complete acceptance of postmodernity, but this thesis argues for an integrated theory which envisages that various types of laws interact, that the state law is also subject to legal postulates, and that state law is in charge of this process as a referee. Supramodernity does not lead to anarchy in contrast to post-modern formulations yet recognises diversity as part of the mosaic.