Let me speak something in this matter, I knew that Cute Wolf may be biased a bit since he was the one who endures discrimination the most from those wahhabists, but believe me, as I was the one you'll call as "abangan" (or secular muslims, in that matter - at least officially in my ID card, I myself is an atheist now), the Wahhabis are pretty much different than us, they forced their wifes to worn hijab, and forced everyone to accomodate their "needs", but when they come in power, they strip everyone out of their group (even secular muslim one), from their rights.

Cute Wolf is 90% Right, your average european muslims want the "rights" to worn those hijab, and that proves that they are "As sunnah wal jamaah", the Wahhabist movement. You may say I'm confused with that, you could speak as you please, especially alh_p (which never endure discrimination anyway, unless you're muslim yourself and want to undermine your country system delibrately), but I knew that those wahhabis did enforce their influence by systematically terrorizing the opposite group, and actively recruits criminals for their works (from prison converts, they allready done there).

As far as my own interpretation goes (as standard Indonesian muslim interpretation, oh yeah, Indonesian muslims are mostly, and historically adhere Sufism), those laws are meant to be act metaphorically:
- the law of halal-haram was meant to be hygenic law one, back there in ancient arab, pigs are unsuitable to desert cndition, and they are prone to contract worms and other type of parasites, and you must remember the context, Arabs that time rarely eat well-done meats, but most often eat them rare, you can't do that with pigs.
- as hijab law concerned, they are more about morality rather than actual dress code. The anshar women that worn black veils with only one of their eyes shown are meant to be taken as "they never tempt the passion of any other man rather than their own husbands" because eyes are regarded as the primary values of women's beauty, and "shown only one eye" are meant "faithful to their husbands (in one way)". You must remember that some decades ago, bar some isolated community in southren arabs, afghanistan, and some other isolated pockets, muslim women generally worn little to none head coverings, you could see examples from arts, photos, and literatures. Did they aren't as pious as today's standards? NO, they are even more pious and spiritual than today's muslimah that press for earthly appearances, but forgot that the essence of spirituality was spiritual one. It was ridiculous thing that today's muslimah press for hijab, when women at the early caliphates only worn that in religious occasions (did they want to be more pious than first generation? ridiculous! - read several literatures from that time, and you'll found that women are mentioned comb their hair in the open, have beautiful hair that waved harmoniously with the wind, and their dyed hair sparkle under the sun...)
- as beer and alcoholic beverages, the anti alcohol laws are specifically mention "Khamr" which was a version of extremely high content alcoholic drinks mixed with poppy sap... that was actually narcotic drinks and they are pretty harmful allready. the fermented milk, as well fermented fruits (that contains alcohols anyway) are still permitted to be drank.
- the law to not befriend christians and jews are meant to be translated as to avoid befriend harsh tax collectors (roman tax collectors), and miserly usurer (jews are often streotyped as such), not in literal sense.
- the law of no skin touch and sex seggregation meant to be translated as suggestion for "abstience", as "skin touch" have sexual connotations because that was the same thing as "flirt sexually" that time...

If you said that was my personal interpretation, ask yourself again, that was what great sufi imams teach back in medieval times, and I believe today's muslims are less pious compared with them.