Is the aforementioned marriage canonically valid according to the four schools of thought, given the existing flaws, which are: poor eyesight, obsessive-compulsive disorder (waswasah), the guardian not praying, the two witnesses shaving their beards, the two witnesses not knowing the couple, the husband offering the ijāb (proposal), performing 'Umrah incompletely, the word "muwakkilatuk" (your agent) instead of "muwalliyatuk" (your guardian/one you are giving in marriage), and the failure to pay the prompt dower? And is intimacy between the couple permissible in this case?

Most jurists validate the guardianship of an unrighteous person. There is a disagreement regarding the condition of righteousness for witnesses, but it suffices not to know of their unrighteousness. The marriage contract is concluded with the testimony of those whose religious state is not known. Some scholars validate the testimony of a father for his son in marriage, and the presence of others is sufficient, even if they are not called upon to witness. The statement of the guardian, "I have given you my ward in marriage," does not invalidate the contract. Similarly, dissolving the state of ihram (definition) for Umrah (definition) by cutting some hair, following the Maliki school of thought, does not affect the marriage contract. Repentance erases what preceded it. Contracts that were concluded out of ignorance or interpretation are upheld, so do not pay attention to whispers of doubt.