The response to this is as follows.
First, the challenge with the Quran, and the demand to counter it by matching one of its chapters, were made by the Prophet in Mekka, before the power of Islam had prevailed and the Muslims had consolidated their authority. In spite of that, none of the masters of Arabic style were able to meet this challenge.
Second, fear of Muslim power during the reign of the first caliphs did_ not prevent the rejecters of faith from manifesting their rejection of the religion of Islam. Indeed, the people of the Book lived among Muslims in the Arabian peninsula, and other places, in perfect happiness and good fortune. They had the same rights as the Mus‌ lims and the same obligations. This was so especially during the caliphate of the Commander of the Faithful [Ali b. Abi Talib], whose commitment to justice and copious knowledge were acknowledged by Muslims and non-Muslims. Had any of these people of the Book [i.e., the Jews and the Christians] been able to produce the like of the Quran, they would have certainly brought it forth in their argument [against the Muslims].
Third, fear, if it did exist, would have merely prevented an open attempt at coun‌ tering the Quran. But what was it that stopped the people of the Book or others from trying to counter it in the secrecy of their homes and gatherings? And if such an at‌ tempt had succeeded, would not the people of the Book have preserved it until the fear had passed and they could disclose it, as they did with the myths of the two Testaments and all other things related to their religions?
Fourth, due to well-observed human characteristics, even works of high stylistic merit will lose their effectiveness with repetition. It is for this reason that a beautiful ode, frequently heard, becomes boring and irritating to the listener. If he were to hear another ode, he might at first think it more eloquent than the first. But if the second ode is also frequently repeated, the relative merits of the two will become apparent. This applies to all things that human beings delight in and enjoy-whatever they eat, wear, hear, and so on. If the Quran had not been a miracle, then it, too, would have been subject to the same rule, and would have lost its effectiveness on the souls of its hearers due to repetition and the passage of time. Thus, countering it would have become easier. Yet we find that the more the Quran is recited and repeated, the more it gains in beauty and resplendence, the more it gives of its gnosis and certainty, and the more faith and belief it inspires. In this distinctive characteristic, the Quran is the opposite of customary literature. Consequently, this aspect, contrary to what the opponent suspects, confirms its miraculous inimitability.
Fifth, even if we were to concede that repeated recitations of the Quran lead to
pleasing familiarity, and therefore forestall attempts to match it, this would apply only to Muslims who believe in it and listen to it with desire and yearning whenever it is recited. Then, why should non-Muslim Arabs who are skilled in the language refrain from countering it? They could have been sure that, if successful, the ability to match it would have been convincing, even if only to non-Muslims.

٨. They also say that history mentions that when Abi١ Bakr decided to compile the Quran, he asked Umar [b. al-Khanab] and Zayd b. Thabit to sit at the entrance of the mosque and write down whatever was attested by two witnesses to be part of the Book of God. This proves that the Quran does not exceed the laws of nature,