Edited sentence: " Other scholars have spoken against this conclusion.Arafat argued that Ibn Ishaq gathered information from descendants of the Qurayza Jews, who embellished or manufactured the details of the incident.Arafat, deem such a massacre as "unislamic" and have disputed the historicity of the incident.In western writings, the incident has caused much negative criticism.Later Muslim scholars justified the treatment of the Banu Qurayza with reference to the Qur'anic Surah , arguing that the Qurayza broke the pact with Muhammad, and thus Muhammad was justified in repudiating his side of the pact and declaring war on the Qurayza.Other Muslim theologians and historians  have either viewed the incident as "the punishment of the Medina Jews, who were invited to convert and refused, perfectly exemplify the Quran's tales of what happened to those who rejected the prophets of old" or offered a political explanation.Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi argued that the Qurayza would have attacked the Muslims from the rear at the opportune moment.Still others, such as W.Stillman argued that such harsh rules of war was common practice in that period and throughout the ancient world, while Watt argues that the contemporary criticisms of Muhammad were motivated by "the number and danger of the blood-feuds incurred", which he deems "superstitious prejudice or fear of the consequences rather than moral issues".Watt finds Arafat's arguments "not entirely convincing.William Muir for example commented "That the massacre was savage and cruel, to a barbarous  and inhuman degree, it does not require any comment to prove ... the indiscriminate slaughter of eight hundred men, and the subjugation of the women and children of the whole tribe to slavery, can be recognized by no civilized people otherwise than as an act of enormous ferocity