“Do not revert after me to unbelief, striking one another’s necks.” (1)

Thus Ali would be an unbeliever on that account—then your argument would be no stronger than theirs, for the hadiths they cite as evidence are authentic.

They would also say:

Killing people is corruption. Whoever kills people to secure their obedience to himself seeks exaltation on earth and corruption. This was the condition of Pharaoh.

Allah Most High says:

“That home of the Hereafter We assign to those who seek neither exaltation on earth nor corruption. The ultimate outcome belongs to the righteous.”

Surah al-Qasas. Thus, whoever seeks exaltation on earth and corruption will not attain felicity in the Hereafter.

This is unlike al-Siddīq’s fighting the apostates and those who withheld zakat. Al-Siddīq fought them solely for obedience to Allah and His Messenger, not obedience to himself. Zakat was obligatory upon them, so he fought them until they acknowledged its obligation and paid it—unlike one who fights so that he himself will be obeyed.

For this reason, Imam Ahmad, Abu Hanīfah, and others said:

“If someone says, ‘I will pay zakat, but I will not hand it over to the ruler,’ the ruler may not fight him.”

The jurists disagree on this matter. Those who permit fighting someone for refusing obedience to the ruler permit fighting such people. This is the view of a group of jurists, and it is also related from al-Shāfi‘ī—may Allah have mercy upon him.