I think this comment assumes corporate greed and consumer hoodwinking from the outset, when instead the economics for this arise organically.
You wish to buy an asset, but don't have the funds to do it. At that point, your only options are to pay in installments towards eventual ownership. So you go to a for-profit lending institution, which agrees to let you pay it back in installments, and has you sign a contract for it.
There's nothing inherently greedy about this - it's just the way agents in an economy work. It would be greed/hoodwinking if customers were tricked into giving money away or didn't have terms explained to then upfront or that "interest" or "rates" beyond what is needed to recoup the asset despite depreciation - but I've not seen anything to suggest that is common practice in any home loan situation.
All that Islamic finance does is change who is nominally the owner of the asset under consideration until the asset is paid back. The standard American model - you're the owner, until the bank reposses it. The Islamic model - the bank is the owner until you buy it back.
This judaic model where all loans are forgiven after a certain period is relevant too. I guess the capitalist workaround would be for the lender to keep ownership of the house and just evict the debtor on that deadline.
Differences matter. Your derisive, dismissive view is shallow.
I haven't analysed the effects of this home ownership structure, but the business investment approach means that the banks aren't lenders, but are part owners of the company. This gives a different incentive structure and changes the relationship - I think for the better.
