Smṛtis such as the Manusmṛti, Islamic Sharīʿa, and Christian canon law all function as religious legal frameworks that seek to shape both personal conduct and social order. Each draws its authority from a relationship to revelation and sacred tradition: Smṛtis are human compositions that remember and systematize principles understood to flow from the Vedas, Sharīʿa is grounded in the Qurʾān and the prophetic Sunnah, and canon law arises from Scripture as interpreted through church councils and ecclesiastical decrees. All three have been elaborated through extensive scholarly interpretation and commentary, forming rich juristic traditions rather than single, static codes. Historically, they have each influenced the broader legal and social structures of the communities in which they were embedded, especially in matters such as marriage, inheritance, ritual obligations, and moral behavior.

At the same time, the three systems differ markedly in scope, institutionalization, and the way authority is imagined. Smṛtis are part of a plural dharmaśāstra tradition, subordinate to Śruti, with multiple texts and commentaries that coexist and sometimes conflict, and their application has long been mediated by custom, region, and social context. Sharīʿa, by contrast, is conceived as a singular divine law that aspires to regulate the full range of human action—individual and communal—though in practice it is expressed through diverse schools of jurisprudence. Christian canon law is more narrowly focused on the internal life of the Church: its governance, sacramental practice, discipline of clergy and laity, and certain aspects of marriage, rather than serving as a comprehensive civil code for society at large.

The social vision encoded in these bodies of law also shows both resonance and divergence. Smṛtis, especially Manusmṛti, articulate a detailed varṇa-āśrama framework, explicitly codifying caste-based duties and hierarchies as part of dharma. Sharīʿa, while structuring gender roles and communal life, emphasizes the religious equality of believers rather than a caste order. Canon law, for its part, is more concerned with ecclesial hierarchy and sacramental discipline than with constructing a full social stratification for the wider society. In all three traditions, later interpreters have wrestled with these inherited hierarchies, sometimes reinforcing them and sometimes seeking to soften or reinterpret them.

In contemporary practice, the legal force and ambit of these systems have shifted, yet they remain significant as normative horizons. Smṛtis no longer function as a comprehensive state law; their influence is more indirect, often filtered through modern statutory personal laws and scholarly or ideological engagement. Sharīʿa continues to be implemented fully in some societies and partially in others, especially in areas such as family law and inheritance. Canon law today primarily governs the internal life of churches, especially the Catholic Church, through codified legal collections that are periodically revised. Across these differences, all three can be seen as attempts to weave together revelation, ethical aspiration, and social order into a coherent vision of how human beings ought to live.