She got divorced when she was pregnant, then she miscarried, but there were no human features in the embryo; she thought that her ‘iddah was over at that point, then she got married

If
a woman with whom her husband has consummated the marriage is divorced by talaaq, then she is obliged to observe the ‘iddah (waiting period). If she is a woman who menstruates,
then she must observe ‘iddah for three complete
menstrual cycles after the divorce (talaaq), meaning
that one period comes and goes, then another comes and goes, then another comes
and goes (and she purifies herself after each period). That is three complete
menstrual cycles, whether the timing between them is long or not. This has been
discussed previously in fatwa no.
12667. 

This
applies if she is not pregnant. However if she is pregnant, then her ‘iddah lasts until the pregnancy ends, as explained in the
fatwa referred to above. It should be noted that the pregnancy for which delivery
(of the foetus) signals the end of the ‘iddah is that in which human features can clearly be seen
in the foetus – according to the more correct view.
The minimum period at which human features appear clearly in the foetus is eighty days from the beginning of the pregnancy,
but the usual period is ninety days. If the woman miscarries and no human
features can be seen in the embryo, the ‘iddah does
not end at that point – according to the more correct opinion; rather in that
case she must still observe ‘iddah for three
menstrual cycles, as explained previously in fatwa no.
107051. 

The
Maalikis have a different view; they are of the view
that if a woman miscarries and passes congealed blood, then her ‘iddah ends at that point, even if no features could be seen
in it. It says in Mukhtasar Khaleel (1/130): The ‘iddah
of a pregnant woman in the case of divorce (talaaq)
or the death of her husband is when her pregnancy ends completely, even if that
is by passing congealed blood. End quote. The Maaliki
scholars interpreted “congealed blood” which signals the end of ‘iddah in their view as that which does not dissolve if hot
water is poured on it. It says in Sharh Mukhtasar Khaleel by al-Kharashi (4/143):

What
is meant by congealed blood is that which does not dissolve if hot water is
poured on it. End quote. 

In
ash-Sharh al-Kabeer
by Shaykh ad-Dardeer
(2/474) it says: The sign of it having been a pregnancy is that if hot water is
poured on it, it does not dissolve. End quote.

 You
state that there were no human features in what was passed. As that was the
case, your ‘iddah did not end when you passed it –
according to the more correct opinion; rather what you should have done was to
observe ‘iddah for three menstrual cycles. 

But
so long as the second marriage has indeed taken place on the basis that you
thought that your ‘iddah had ended, and this idea is
in accordance with a school of thought (madhhab) that
is recognised by the scholars, which is the madhhab of the Maaliki fuqaha’ who say that the ‘iddah
ends when congealed blood is passed, then it is permissible for you to forego
the view of the majority and follow the Maalikis in
their view that the ‘iddah ended when this blood was
passed. Hence the verdict is that the second marriage is valid. 

This
– i.e., following a less correct opinion after the fact – is the view favoured by a number of scholars, especially if adhering to
the more correct view would cause hardship or difficulty. In that case ash-Shaatibi – may Allah have mercy on him – said in al-Muwaafaqaat (5/190): If a person has done something
that is not allowed, but the rulings concerning the situation may lead to more
than is appropriate – in terms of consequences , not in terms of the rulings
themselves – or rectifying it may lead to greater hardship than the reason why
it was prohibited in the first place, then he may be left as he is, without
efforts being made to undo what has been done. In other words, we may overlook
whatever bad things have occurred, in a manner befitting justice, on the basis
that what has been done was in harmony with some (scholarly) view, even if that
view is less correct, because it is the correct view in this case which
requires us not to undo what has happened, because leaving it is more
appropriate thing than undoing it; that is because trying to undo it may cause
more harm than the harm the Lawgiver sought to protect him from when it told
him not to do it. End quote. 

The
point is that it may be the case that the evidence for prohibition is stronger
before it happens, and the evidence for overlooking it is stronger after it has
happened, because of contingent circumstances that weigh more heavily on the
side of overlooking it, as was pointed out in the hadeeth
about rebuilding the Ka‘bah on the foundations laid
by Ibraaheem (peace be upon him) [the Prophet
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) thought of rebuilding the Ka‘bah on the foundations of Ibraaheem,
but because Quraysh were so new in Islam and would be
shocked by the change, he decided to refrain]; and the hadeeth
in which the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) stated why he
did not execute the hypocrites [despite it being permissible for him to do so
because of their treachery; he did not want people to say that Muhammad killed
his companions]; and the hadeeth about the man who
urinated in the mosque – the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)
ordered that he be left alone until he was done, because if he had interrupted
him whilst he was urinating, that could have led to his clothes becoming
contaminated and could have caused him some physical harm. So the issue of
allowing him to carry on with a forbidden action was more appropriate than
interrupting him, which would have caused him harm and would have led to
contamination of two places (the ground and his clothes), whereas if he was
left alone, only one place would be contaminated. 

In
the hadeeth it says: “Any woman who gets married
without the permission of her guardian, her marriage is invalid, invalid,
invalid.” Then he said: “But if he has consummated the marriage with her, then
she is entitled to the mahr because he has been
intimate with her.” This is correcting the situation (marriage of a woman
without her guardian’s permission) in one way, hence the couple
inherit from one another if one of them dies, and any child who is born
as a result is to be attributed to the man. By applying these rulings to an invalid
marriage as if it were a valid marriage, and by ruling that in-laws become mahrams and so on, the scholars indicated that the marriage
is basically valid, otherwise it would come under the rulings on zina, but it does not come under the rulings on zina at all, according to scholarly consensus. 

Therefore with regard to a marriage
concerning which there is a difference of scholarly opinion, all views may be
taken into consideration, so that no separation should take place after the
marriage has been consummated, based on the new situation after consummation
which makes the view that it is valid stronger. 

Based
on that, what appears to be the case – and Allah knows best – is that the
second marriage is to be regarded as valid, based on the opinion of the Maalikis who say that the ‘iddah
ends when the pregnancy is miscarried, even if human features are not visible
in it. 

But
there remains another issue, which is what you said about the marriage having
been organised by followers of the Naqshbandi tareeqah (Sufi order).
You did not explain to us the nature of these arrangements. If what you mean is
that the marriage contract – only – was done in their mosque, and nothing else,
then this does not matter, if a Muslim guardian and two witnesses of good
character were present. 

But
if what you mean is that the marriage contract was done without the presence of
a guardian at all, or that it was done under the guardianship of a person who
follows this misguided and innovated tareeqah, then
in this case the marriage contract was done in an invalid manner, because the
marriage contract done without a guardian is invalid, as we have explained in
fatwa no.
144712 

The
followers of the Naqshbandi tareeqah
are in grave danger and there are many serious innovations (bid‘ahs)
in their beliefs and practices. 

Hence
in order to be on the safe side you should repeat your marriage contract; if
you now have a Muslim guardian among your family and relatives, then he may do
the marriage contract for you; if you do not have a Muslim guardian, then your
marriage contract may be done by the Muslim qaadi
(judge), if there is one, or by the director of the Islamic Centre, the imam of
the mosque or a Muslim man of good character. 

For
more information on the Naqshbandis and their
deviation, please see the following link (in Arabic):
http://www.saaid.net/feraq/sufyah/t/6.htm 

And Allah knows best.