Is the aforementioned marriage, which took place in several stages and in different countries, with details of engagement and acceptance from both spouses and witnesses but without the father in the final stage, considered a legitimate and valid marriage?

Among the pillars of marriage (nikah), without which it is not valid, are the offer (ijab) and acceptance (qabul), and the pronouncement issued by the guardian (wali) and by the husband or their respective agents, which indicates the conclusion of the marriage. While there isn't a specific, fixed wording for this pronouncement, it is preferable and safer to use the well-known, prescribed phrases such as "I marry you (zawwajtuka)" and "I accept (qabiltu)"; this is to avoid the dispute of those scholars who stipulated these specific wordings. Merely signing a written contract is not sufficient. Furthermore, among the conditions for the validity of marriage is that it must be contracted by the woman's guardian or his agent, for "there is no marriage without a guardian."

Accordingly, if what transpired in the first session was merely a promise of marriage and engagement, and the contract was not established with the lawful offer and acceptance, then the marriage has not been concluded. What occurred in Europe, where you were merely asked about your acceptance of marriage and you agreed, does not constitute a valid contract, regardless of whether the father was present or not. If he was not present, the marriage is invalid due to the absence of the guardian.

Based on this, the marriage contract must be re-contracted using the lawful wording (the father saying to the groom: "I marry you my daughter," and the groom saying: "I accept") in the presence of two witnesses. This can be done over the phone if tampering is secured against, or the father can appoint another person to conduct the contract on his behalf, and the previous official documents will suffice.