I witness that, the Quran and hadiths,
"But" law-makers seem to have had their own opinions. This document is for explaining how and why I am refuting those portions of their law-making, that are different than how I witness.
Hadiths tell of the two-phase marriage of Aisha (r.a). Obviously, first was the forward-approval of her father, AbuBakr (r.a.), writing the marriage contract, with the groom, Muhammed (s.a.s).
By the way, concerning the need to wait until puberty, a further indicator, ironically, is the Quran ayet that some people think as if that were implying the vice versa. The Talaq(65):4 is telling of the iddah periods of the divorcees, and there is no such case of "no need to wait iddah, because of young age." Now that we know that, iddah is for waiting probable pregnancies, then that could not have been before puberty. In contrast , the "young who fail to see their menses," are obviously those with irregular menses, and happening to not see menses at about the time of their divorce.
The hadiths that "A widow has more right for deciding about herself, than her protector has, and request the permission of a maiden (for marrying that maiden), her permission being her (acquiscingly) silence." looks just too obvious to support the point that, the maiden may veto, too. But surprisingly, the law-makers have taken unacceptable twists of logic, to turn all of that exactly vice versa, and with that, overriding all of the rights of the maidens.
That logical fallacy is quite sad, and I hope I never commit such (or, any) logical fallacies. In the case of pre-pubescents, that (on-Islamic, false-law) "legitimacy" of marrying-coercively by her protector, may have caused, lots of what would (Islamically) not supposed to happen. Depending on your pessimism, or optimism, you might think that, that has caused lots of agonies, or alternatively, pleasures (as genitals of children become sensitive to touch, about age four). Laugh at that, or sob. But furthermore, the terrible law-making is that, some of our law-makers have let that coerciveness "right" to apply to maidens at any age -- sounds to me like being kidnapped, in broad daylight, while you are fully conscious, and everybody you know, just watching you.
That half-amplified-half-neglected way of interpreting the hadith (by stressing the two-categories but behaving as if permission-requesting were optional), was presumably found so potent that, they have obviously chosen to neglect the hadith (from both Aisha (r.a.) and Ibn-Abbas (r.a.)), about the maiden who was being coerced by her father, and then, Muhammed (s.a.s.) gave the girl the right to marry herself, while some law-makers have expressly made maidens, at any age, subject to "coercive guardians."
Reflecting about this, does not convince me against the Islamic law, but vice versa, re-inforces the point that we those who have been pejorative of "law-making" (in contrast to strictly living by the divine laws), have been just exactly right -- and you find such law-maker quirks almost everywhere, in secular (etc) law-making ("but" now, it turns out that, our law mezhebs have had their share of excessive law-making instances, too).People, even little children, sometimes have their opinion, about what food they would not like to have. Thankfully, Islam gives the right to repulse "yucky" (aversive) marriage poposals, too.
While telling this, the point is not to get into the mud of trying to socially-philosophize "how to (or, why to) constrain people, or not to constrain" (toward any law-making, at all), but now that, Allah turns out to allow the right to veto, then I point out how I appreciate that Islamic rule, with the [modest] real-world understanding I have, too.
By the way, without extra law-making, but if I may reflect about best-practices, then I may reflect that, if the girl is quite sure that she knows the conditions that her father knew (about the groom, etc), maybe her father had told her about why he had chosen that groom, and if those pre-suppositions turn out to be false, or they have changed in time, then the girl may just choose to refuse that marriage, with her normal right to accept-or-veto the marriage. The contract is no trap.
Likewise, other people (if her father is living then he, or if he has died, then her protector, or other people she finds prudent to heed) inform her about such problems.
Mezhebs (of law) have lists of precedences of who might be the girl's protector (to accept-or-veto the marriage). If one is eliminated, the next taking his/her role. Such list of precedences might or might not all have some basis in the Islamic sources. They presumably reflect the social-philosophies of the law-makers, too, who systematize their rule-of-thumb precedences. A point that is almost (or, exactly) obvious, is that, if none is left in the list (like when the country's ruler is non-muslim), the girl may (or, has to) find some honest, wise muslims, who may then be her protector (with veto right).
Law-makers have made up excuses for coercing those people who have mental-illness, too -- specifically, if he/she seems to have interest in the opposite sex. But, in fact, that may warn you that, when genies (or, witchcraft) assault, the victim may seem as if in a mental-illness episode.
That is the classic case of witchcraft (messing with marriages), the existence of which, is acknowledged by the Quran (as concerns divorces).
If some which may simply bug the victim, through genies, then you are victimizing the person furthermore, if coercing him/her into a marriage which he/she does not, or would not, approve.
In fact, some of the ugliest personalities, such as the evil ibne-telepaths, may exactly make the victim, even maiden, look like (and perhaps think like) sluts -- which is false image, if the victim is resisting the pressure, by not committing the evil suggestions.
In other words, guardian's right-to-veto, is for safety, for the person in question, not to commit to a potential tragedy. In fact, the cases of those "mentally-ill," may require more (not less) concern against marrying at a rush, because there is that extra evidence (thus, likelihood) of someone (genies, or human) trying to victimize him/her, through thought-control. That is in the category of rape, even without "marrying" her coercively, that is, if she thinks she "wants" but that is only a thought-control effect.
If the victim ("patient") is looking as if fit to marry, that is, his/her trouble not looking like posing a problem specifically about marriage, then again, maybe the case of people under-hajr, would fit. That resembles the case of maidens, that is, the guardian will accept-or-veto his/her wishes. No coercion by any guardian, nor allowing majnoons (even widow majnoons) decide by oneselves.
( Majnoon, or not, widow, or not, your mezheb obliging to have guardian, or not, consulting opinions of fellow good muslims, is probably no harm. )
I may list the Quran ayet that forbids coercing the slaves to prostitution, as a proof that, slaves may not be coerced to "marriage," either. Otherwise, those slaves would be open to continuously "marrying" then divorcing (as the slave's master and prostitution-clients would agree, to terms).
In truth, so far as I know and may reflect, the master may coerce his (female) slave only to himself, if at all. If the slave herself wants marriage, then the master is her protector (to accept-or-veto).
If the law was wrongly understood, until now, then there may be cases, that were thought to be "lawful," but turns out to be not. In transition, some options are more fitting to people with taqwa,
In the case of the women/girls who want to veto such "marriages," they have that right (in my opinion), because there is no legal basis of coercing to marriage (by their so-called, "mujbir veli"). Simply get out, without waiting (as some may like to think still-waiting-there, as if that were "the silence-of-maiden" in the hadith, although the surprise and confusion factors of the coercion case are obvious, with inertia (of confusion) upon facing the law afterward, probably unlike the case of the maiden who merely faces a proposal, without bond, yet). But if you would take the opinion of some law-maker, and their opinion is not like mine (as they add lots of "if-then-after-that" stories to cases, that seem to have no basis in Islamic sources, but in pure social-philosophy), then the choice with most taqwa, is the man to allow the woman to decide. Otherwise, if I am right, their relationship is not Islamic marriage, then again, if the law-makers suggest the legitimacy ("legal but sin" as they sometimes categorize the violations), then woman's presuming her non-marriedness, would have "Islamically" bad consequences (avoidance of her "husband," and marrying new person if she will marry (other person) afterward). Therefore, the best option, in transition, is for the couple to act benevolently (men allowing her to veto, and perhaps, women would not want to veto, maybe unless finding her past too abusive).
In the cases of pre-pubescents (as with the "coercive-guardian" concept, marrying kids without achieving puberty, was seen allowable), now, even in case there is a willingness to keep the marriage, the couple have to wait until his/her puberty (if both, then puberties), and in case the father/guardian has died, then again, at least, they have to live in presence of other people (not alone), because unmarried man and woman/girl may not remain alone (maybe unless the man is her legal guardian, too).
No law may send all fathers to heaven. Some will go to hell -- and living accordingly, in this world.
Law-makers have thought up their own opinions of fathers, as merciful, loving -- unless proven otherwise. But that is not sufficiently general, and in fact, in cases, that father might be munafiq.
In Turkey (T.C.), in the 21st century, the (Islamic) shariah law is not the state law, and therefore, the problem is looking like not quite current, but the point is there, when you witness, time to time, some children of sabbataist families, revolt at their parents. If there would be shariah (with coerciveness to marriage) in Turkey, those parents woulld even have the state's law mechanisms to coerce their honest, Islam-choosing daughters, to "marriages" with other (sabbataist) munafiqs. That is a consequence of the law-making, not because of the Quran, nor hadiths.
In fact, for black humor, but if truly there was the case, then I will be now listing a tragedy. I may think up of a possible case from the life of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of T.C. While he was living in Salonica, he was at first sent to a Quran school, but next, went to a secular school, of which, the principal/owner was a sabbataist, who had set up a non-sectarian school, such that the opponent factions of sabbataists (kapanjis and karakashs) would have their education together, and M.K.Atatürk was able to get into that school with lots of sabbataists in that, and at a time, when the law of the state was shariah. Now, in case, the school was co-educatioal (boys and girls), or relatives of the boys were visiting the school and talking with M.K.Atatürk, or maybe boys oneselves narrating something Islamic that M.K.Atatürk might have told from his previous school knowledge, then maybe some sabbataists girls, thought to truly convert to Islam (unlike their munafiq, racist, heretical crypto-Jew parents), and then, those girls might have been kept within sabbataist circles -- as even the state law was written to allow coercing those to whomever the parents want those girls to marry.
How would a poor girl conclusively prove that her father is munafiq (non-muslim, probably anti-muslim)? Why do you take her God-given veto right, and then how do you expect her to free herself from such a menace of non-muslim, coercive parents?
Islamically, non-muslims may not even be regular guardian for muslims (nor, vice versa),
let alone, innovating such baseless concepts as "coercive-guardian."
How I came to interpret this, was somewhat awkward,
I presume that the two law encyplopedias (at home), were written right, and translated right to turkish. But speaking of hypocrites, Turkey has a special share, because lots of sabbataists (kabbalist heretical racist crypto-Jews, who might be the anti-christ gang), live in Turkey, and occupy/abuse titles such as (mevlevi, bektashi, etc.) sheikhs, and university professors (and you think about the people who pray their salah (namaz) at mosque, behind such non-muslim imams (sheikhs/etc), and think about the case if the translations at our home, might be on-purpose, falsely translated by such "theology professors"). If encyclopedias are not actually reflecting what the Islamic mezheb imams had said, then the point of awkwardness, is not stickable to any law-making mezheb imam, either -- and in no case to the root texts of Islam, the Quran, nor hadiths, even when some of us may interpret those texts falsely.