What is the ruling when multiple Haddud (prescribed punishments) converge, one of which involves capital punishment?

Primary text

When a combination of prescribed punishments converges, including one that mandates killing (such as theft, married fornication, drinking alcohol, or killing in rebellion/armed robbery, referred to as *Muharaba*), the capital punishment is enforced, and all other punishments are waived. This is the position held by Ibn Mas'ud, 'Ata', al-Sha'bi, al-Nakha'i, al-Awza'i, Hammad, Malik, and Abu Hanifa. The evidence supporting this is the statement attributed to Ibn Mas'ud: 'When two Haddud converge, one of which is killing, the killing encompasses the rest.' Furthermore, these are Haddud belonging purely to Allah that involve killing; thus, lesser punishments are dropped, analogous to the case where a rebel kills and takes wealth, where only killing is enacted, and the hand is not amputated. Since these punishments aim solely at deterrence, and killing achieves this goal, lesser deterrents become unnecessary. This differs from Qisas (retaliation in kind), which involves gratification and vengeance beyond mere deterrence.