I agree every civilised society has rules and laws. The questions is, which matters are personal and should be left to individual choice? At what stage does the legislation of individual choices and behaviour degenerate into fanatical control?
As a Hindu, I would be extremely angry if India banned the consumption of beef or even if some Hindu group tried to dictate whether people could eat beef or not (which they do try to do from time to time). These superstitions/religious edicts usually emerge from practical social/economic considerations that were once relevant. The economic significance of the cow in ancient India led to society trying to prevent the killing of cows. As this became the prevalent practice, it found its way into Hinduism. Similarly, the Muslim ban on pork (inherited from Abrahamic times) was probably because it wasn't possible to raise pigs in sanitary conditions at that time. Society wanted to stop pork consumption to prevent disease and it found its way into Islam. None of this has anything to do with God or divine decree. Allah doesn't (or at least he shouldn't) care whether someone eats pork from a modern, clean farm.
The problem here is the literal interpretation of religion without paying heed to the social, economic and political context that the religion emerged in. Unfortunately, this literal interpretation seems to be most prevalent in modern day Muslims (indeed one's devotion is questioned if they deviate from that interpretation).
