Then I assume 2 would no longer be a risk? Bank owned the property, if you failed to pay bank will sold it to someone else who can pay, bank will then return your money if it sold higher than the set price.
Point is 3 is a weak contract issue, when you made the purchase, the contract should be clear that bank can not seize the house unless you failed to pay. If the contract says bank can cancel the transaction however they want or whenever they have issue, no one would want to do business with them. Imagine accepting a project but we put the terms, we can cancel the project and not return your money if we have issues with it.
Again 4 is also a contract issue, we have to draft the contract to make it feasible for both parties. It is basically an installment, you buy $100k house for $100/month. That’s it, the values are clear, the monthly payment will not go higher or lower, you can even pay the remaining directly with hard cash on the next month if you want.
A lot of states are working to outlaw these deals, because for these reasons and others they are considered abusive.
Best of luck!
Stay very, very far away from these types of loans is the best financial advice here.
And, come on man, really, is it that amazing that financial advice from 1500 years ago is a little bit out of date ? Yes, the Jewish and Roman empires experimented a lot with interest rules and had some very bad experiences doing that, especially in the provinces, so yes, they considered it evil at the time Islam was created. Great. They also considered straight lines evil for a thousand years (not joking about the straight lines) ... And while both pieces of advice have some validity to them, they should be reevaluated when practical.
It is similar to a seller buying some cars for $10k each, and sell them on their dealership for $15k each. They can provide installment payment for the buyer and sell it for $20k each and they can pay it per month for $500. The difference between price is not loan/interest, its their profits.