[2] Individual iqtaʿ holders in Middle Eastern societies had little incentive to provide public goods to the localities assigned to them.
They united the Amirs of Persia and reorganized their land into Iqtas, whose borders remained largely similar to the predecessor states.
In the Seljuk Empire, the move toward the iqta' system was facilitated by the Persian bureaucrat Nizam al-Mulk "who developed and systemized the trend towards feudalism that was already inherent in the tax-farming practices of the immediately preceding period," [5] It is made clear that muqtis hold no claim on the peasants/subjects other than that of collecting from them in a proper manner the due land tax that has been assigned to them.
When the revenue has been realized from them, those subjects should remain secure from any demands of the muqtis in respect of their persons, wealth, families, lands and goods.
During the rule of Mamluk dynasty in India, Shamsa ud-din Iltutmish established the "Iqta' system" based on Mohammad Gori's ideas.
The money was used to pay for the landowner's army, which could be called by the Sultan at any time, making up for a relatively quick mobilisation and highly professional soldiers.
His absolutist rule concentrated on limiting the power of the estates (mainly the nobility and merchants) and securing his supreme authority as the king.
Orientalist Claude Cahen described the iqtaʿ as follows: a form of administrative grant, often (wrongly) translated by the European word "fief".
The nature of the iḳṭā' varied according to time and place, and a translation borrowed from other systems of institutions and conceptions has served only too often to mislead Western historians, and following them, even those of the East.
[9]and Irfan Habib explained the Iqta concept as follows: A mechanism had to be devised to collect the surplus from the peasantry and redistribute it among the members of the ruling class.
The crucial element in this mechanism was the iqtaʿ that combined the two functions of collection and distribution without immediately endangering the unity of the political structure.