Then what's the solution?
We cannot keep on going like this.
We are not going to, nor do we want to, give up Islam.
The only other choice is to reform the mullahs
The problem is a particular kind of religiosity - A religiosity that is focused on certitude, not faith, a religiosity focused on outward appearances of piety, that is to say a religiosity of hypocracy, read below and see if this applies to what we are witnessing :
Distinguishing different types of religiosity is certainly not a new or innovative idea. When the Holy Koran speaks of the yamiyn (the ones on the right) and the sabiqun (the vanguards), it is offering a way of distinguishing different types of religiosity. And religious scholars, who speak of legalistic, methodistic and idealistic religion or of the religion of initiation, the median and culmination, are touching on this same truth.
This article, too, will present, in brief, a categorisation of different types of religiosity which has differences and similarities with the above-mentioned divisions.
We will call these three types of religiosity, respectively: 1. Pragmatic (or utilitarian) religiosity; 2. Gnostic religiosity; and 3. Experiential religiosity.
First: Pragmatic (utilitarian) religiosity
In this type of religiosity, a view or an actions ultimate purpose, utility and outcome (this worldly or other worldly) are of paramount importance to the believer. It is a religion for life (not synonymous with life or higher than life). In its purely other-worldly forms, it wears the garb of asceticism and Sufism (Khajeh Abdollah Nesari) and, in its this-worldly forms, the garb of politics and statesmanship (Seyyed Jamal Afghani, etc.). Its central axis is emotion and practical rationality. Among the general masses, the emotional aspect gains the upper hand and, among learned people, the practical rationality (that is to say the capacity to match means to ends).
Pragmatic religiosity is mundane, causal (not reasoned), hereditary, deterministic (not arising from choice or free will), emotional, dogmatic, ritualistic, ideological, identity-bound, external, collective, legalistic-juristic, mythic, imitative, obedient, traditional and habitual. Here, the volume of deeds is the measure of the intensity or otherwise of conviction: performing the hajj numerous times, visiting shrines, praying frequently and so on. Through these actions, the religious person feels more successful and closer to God. Mass rituals and rites nourish this religiosity more than anything else. The frequency of collective prayers, mourning ceremonies, Koranic recitations, retreats, Friday prayers, gatherings and preaching sessions, crowds of believers at shrines and mosques, hordes of fighters in the arenas of jihad amount to the glorification and splendour of this type of religiosity and serve as a source of pride to it. It both stirs up emotions and draws strength from them. Since this type of religiosity is hereditary and not based on reasoning, since emulation and obedience play the biggest role in perpetuating it, since it devotes itself to deeds rather than thought and reflection, and since it is constructed upon emotion and excitation rather than rational endeavour and inquiry, it gradually becomes tainted by dogmatism and prejudice and loses the capacity to tolerate dissent. It defends set habits and traditions dogmatically and sees people who tend to raise questions and reflect upon things as crooks and heretics. Hence, slowly but surely it goes down the path of casting out and excommunicating people.
This is the religiosity of the clergy, and clerics like to emphasise the importance of submission and emulation and religious passion and the performance of rites and rituals to believers. In this way, a believers religion becomes their identity and they defend it in the way they would defend their homeland or property or life, not in the way a scientist would defend a truth. In other words, they want religion so that they can feel like somebody and distinguish themselves from others, not because they want to arrive at some truth.
Believers, in this type of religiosity, are the slaves and God is the master and the sultan (not the God of wisdom, nor the Alluring Beloved). And the Prophet wears the cloak of a commander, issuing orders about what a believer may and may not do, and speaking of glad tidings and ominous portents (not an insightful man of knowledge with exalted experiences, nor a wise and brilliant thinker). And sin amounts to disobeying his orders rather than being something that causes a contraction of the heart. And obedience is part of a deal aimed at accruing some gain or benefit, not something that causes an expansion of the heart, nor yet a participation in a spiritual experience. And following the Prophet means carrying out his commands. Morality is always relegated to second place in this religiosity and is considered to be decorative at best, entailing no religious burdens or duties in itself.
Since imitative believers do not have the courage and strength to look at the Exalted for themselves or to tackle difficult concepts, they look for mediators and they find what they are seeking in the form of religious personalities past and present, such that they spend more time visiting shrines than going to mosques.
In this type of religiosity, personalities are transformed into myths and lose touch with human history and geography... Dogmatic distinctions drawn between us and them and believers and infidels, the firm and unyielding categorisation of people, the simplification of the world and the refusal to see the complexities, subtleties and variations of human existence, and, subsequently, engaging in unsubtle behaviour inappropriate to the elaborate and mysterious nature of life, creating strict ideological divisions, seeing people as either heavenly or hellish, viewing God as an impatient avenger, imagining God as ones own God and the Protector of ones own sect who is uncaring about everyone else, narrowing the definition of truth and broadening the definition of falsehood, highlighting the differences between sects and seeing ones own sect as the axis and measure of truth and falsehood and the creator of the true human identity, ignoring the common attributes of human beings and emphasising every small difference in belief, and compartmentalising humanity into so many different sects are some of the characteristics and defining features of this kind of religiosity.
But learned, pragmatic religiosity is itself of two types: this worldly and other worldly; and, of course, it has important differences with the pragmatic religiosity of the general masses. Here, the central axis is practical rationality, not emotion. And practical reason engages in planning and measures means against ends. But, whatever it does, it is practical and it wants religion for its utility.
Since this-worldly, learned, pragmatic religiosity acts rationally, it has no affinity with myths, it does not blow the horn of emulation, it does not rouse blind emotion, it does not spare tradition the rod of criticism, it has no particular fondness for the clergy; nonetheless, and most importantly, it seeks movement rather than truth, which is precisely the main attribute of ideologies. It sees religion as the servant of politics or revolution or democracy, etc. And, concentrating on the ultimate goal or purpose, it tries to pick out what it finds useful in religion and to set aside anything in it that is of no use.
The God of this kind of religiosity is an observing, supervising God who expects people to act responsibly. His servants are hardworking, shrewd, reward-minded and responsible employees. His Prophet is a prudent politician and a methodical planner. The other-worldly joy or wretchedness of his followers depend on their this-worldly joy or wretchedness. Its religious personalities are historical and non-mythical, and as subject to criticism and analysis as anyone else. There is no element of wonder or secrets or the inner world in this type of religiosity. Seeing human beings, the world and history in simple, ideological terms remains the order of the day.
The collective and demonstrative aspect of religion (apart from its ritualistic dimension) is firmly in place. Political, social, revolutionary or democratic religions are products of this kind of religiosity. Sin is like breaking the law and reward is synonymous with achieving the goal or reaching the desired destination. And obedience to the Prophet is like the shrewd obedience of an employee to a superior, not of a devoted follower to a master, nor of a lover to the beloved. The element of practical endeavour is still prominent, but here it is purposeful endeavour directed towards a this-worldly goal. Religious law and jurisprudence [fiqh] are justified in rationalistic terms. Morality, too, takes on a revolutionary or democratic sense and, ultimately, neither morality nor fiqh are seen as possessing any mysterious qualities or secret and hidden aims. Most modern religious intellectuals and reformers fall into this category and distinguished personalities such as Seyyed Jamal, Shariati, Seyyed Qutb and Ubdah are its prominent representatives in this century.
you have seen what good his hands have achieved 
and the Ulema include the Mufti e Azam and many other noble beings like him, both Shia and Sunni. Whereas a Maulvi abuses Islam because of his ignorance The Ulema dont and never have misused it. In Gojra, maulvis were calling for the heads of the Christians (some intentionally and other not so) whereas a prominent Alim of that area was educating the people to calm down and leave it to the Law. 
