Pluralism Within Limits?

How to reconcile liberty, equality and community in multicultural communities? Proponents of legal pluralism often assert the benefits of legal pluralism for social cohesion or immigrant integration, and for the promotion and protection of social freedoms that individuals have reason to value, while claiming that legal monism (is this the alternative?) undermines social cohesion in multicultural societies by alienating individuals, especially those from minority groups who face homogenizing forces from the dominant mainstream culture. Proponents of legal monism typically maintain the importance of common laws for social cohesion, as well as for equal concern and respect for persons, especially of women and others who may face internal group oppression.
It is hard to know what the actual effects of legal pluralism or legal monism are for goals such as social cohesion or gender equality. Could it be the case that no uniform assessment can be made of either approach - that the consequent benefits and dangers of each approach will depend on context and therefore the question of whether societies should adopt legal pluralism or monism is a matter of political judgement? Has there been much empirical work done on issues such as the operation of sharia law in liberal/social democracies, and the impact on women's rights or gender equality, on the (better or worse) integration of related communities, and on the effects of increased legal pluralism on dominant legal frameworks?
Meanwhile, the debates continue to stir controversy:
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/There_s_no_place_for_Sharia_in_Switzerland.html?siteSect=106&sid=10191498&cKey=1231927977000&ty=st