Ruling on buying additional warranty coverage for products

Question

Praise be to Allah.

It is
permissible to sell products with a warranty for a specific length of
time, and this comes under the heading of a promise or stipulating a
benefit for the purchaser, both of which are permissible. Please see:
al-Hawaafiz at-Tijaariyyah by Dr. Khaalid al-Muslih, p. 246

It is also
permissible to increase the price of the product in return for an increase
in the length of the warranty, as we shall see below in the fatwa of Shaykh
Ibn Jibreen, may Allah have mercy on him.

With regard to
selling separate warranty coverage, such as if a person buys a product
without a warranty, or he buys it with a warranty that has ended, so he buys
a warranty for another period, this is not permissible, because this
involves ambiguity and gambling. In this case he pays money for which he may
or may not benefit from coverage. This comes under the heading of gambling,
which is haraam, and it is the principle on which commercial insurance is
based.

Shaykh Ibn Jibreen
(may Allah have mercy on him) was asked: What is the ruling on raising the
price of a product in return for an extended warranty period?

He replied: There
is nothing wrong with that if it is agreed upon mutually. … As for selling
separate warranty coverage, that is not permissible. And Allah knows best.

See also question
no. 6249

The difference
between increasing the price of the product in return for extending the
warranty, and purchasing separate coverage, is that the warranty in the
first instance is connected to the sale transaction, and the basic principle
is that things may be overlooked if they are connected to (and secondary to)
a transaction in a way that is not applicable in other cases.

Hence the scholars
have stated that the ambiguity that is prohibited is that which is which has
to do with the item that is the main subject of the transaction, not things
that are connected to (and secondary to) that item.

It says in
al-Ma‘aayeer ash-Shar‘iyyah: If the ambiguity has to do with the item
that is the main subject of the transaction, such as selling crops before
they ripen – as opposed to selling the trees themselves – in that case the
transaction is invalid. But if the ambiguity has to do with things that are
connected to (and secondary to) the item that is the main subject of the
transaction, then it does not affect the transaction, such as selling of the
trees with the crops before they ripen, or selling something that has not
yet grown along with that which is already there (in the case of crops), or
selling the foetus along with the ewe, or selling the milk in the udder
along with the ewe – in all these cases, the ambiguity of all of these
(secondary) things may be overlooked and it does not affect the
transaction.

And Allah knows
best.