They ask you, [O Muhammad], what they should spend. Say, "Whatever you spend of good is [to be] for parents and relatives and orphans and the needy and the traveler. And whatever you do of good - indeed, Allah is Knowing of it." 1

I know right?

Just the normalizaton of this practice is good ngl.

If a billionaire donates 2.5% of his money out of their goodwill they get bunch of supporters and tax breaks and people forget allegation on how they raped someone and so on.

Meanwhile even kings, who could do whatever the fuck at the time, were expected donate at least 2.5% in 600s.

More progressive taxing can not only be justified in hindsight of modern capitalism, but can become commonplace and expected too.

Also unrelated but not a single king quit being royalty because they had to donate 2.5% of their ownings so that "taxing the billionaires would unmotivate people to start business" was absolute bs for a good 1400 years lmao.

Under an Islamic rule, the Muslim is forced to do this donation. And Muslim billionaires are not all of a sudden all pious because they have this label. Islamic law doesn't eliminate the need to study politics and sociology you know. Many Muslim scholars, claimed that it could in fact end the poverty in the Islamic world if really all obliged muslims paid their zakat (which is a requirement for Islam, not like a side quest, and should be enforced legally), among them Dr. Abd Al-Rahman bin Hamood Al-Sumait a humanitarian. This might appeal to you?: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/jun/22/zakat-requires-muslims-to-donate-25-of-their-wealth-could-this-end-poverty

otherwise, why the hell would the populace, which outnumber the ruling class, not fight back against their injustices

I don't really know, seems like something that "Political Sociology" treats. Experiments (like the popular Stanford prison experiment) were done on multiple frameworks, and suggest so many variables to explain division among people of same class. Restricting interpretation to religion (while there are so many belief systems) seems to me like oversimplification. Like We had secular states eventually, and it's not like classes vanished, or authoritarian regimes stopped being.

In my personal opinion, the division is the most interesting aspect of why people fail to do anything about their (our actually) miserable state. Because when you know that doing a protest leads you to receive sexual violence (rape using electricity&pipes) from the prison guard (who is actually from the same class as you), and the people for whom you did protest will just denounce you for doing "chaos" in the "peaceful" country, it makes sense that you wouldn't bother.
Here I'm thinking about the current Egyptian regime, which has a documented historical relationship with Soviet / Russian security methods (training, organization, approach of secret policing).

Why people are deceived by scholars of the palace? That would buffle me for eternity when The Prophet of Islam said:

"The most feared thing I fear for my Ummah — community — are the misguided leaders and corrupt scholars."

“When knowledge is sought for other than Allah, it will be removed from the people until only the scholars of evil remain.”

(Ibn Majah, al-Tabarani — meaning: those who use knowledge for power or wealth.)

“The best jihad is a word of truth before a tyrannical ruler.”

(Sunan al-Nasa’i, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi)

His grandson Also died refusing to accept the undemocratic rule of monarchy (in before there used to be a system of election after the Prophet's death): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husayn_ibn_Ali#Uprising
ps: the Wikipedia article isn't the best, but I just want to bring the revolutionary aspect of my religion to your attention.