(At-Taubah 9:28).
In examining Bin Laden's ethics, I have found that he and many other Muslims best fit into the deontological category. Although there are some variations, much of his ethical principles are similar to that of Kant's. Even though both use similar ethical principles to live their lives, their actions in themselves testify to the great difference between each.
Bin Laden operated on the principle of following his duty regardless of the outcome. One good example of this would be September 11. He attacked the most powerful nation in the world and knew there would be a great chance he would suffer great consequences. He followed through with it, seemingly not because he thought he would have no chance of getting caught, but because he felt it was his duty. This is similar to Kant's idea of the choice between pleasure and comfort versus duty. According to Kant, the terrorist act of September 11 would be ethically right, taking into consideration Bin Laden's beliefs. .
Bin Laden could be said to follow the categorical imperative if there could be a clause that Islam is a universal truth. However, assuming Islam is not universal; Bin Laden would break the categorical imperative. He would not want the Jews or Christians to declare a holy war on Islam. But he would still feel that it was necessary for Islam to fight their so called Jihad. This would oppose the categorical imperative. .
Bin Laden would also agree with Kant that it was necessary to treat every man as an end in himself only if he were Muslim. Although it appears Bin Laden uses Muslims for an end outside of themselves, under his beliefs each man who faithfully participated in Islam will have his end in heaven. Once again Kant's standard is broken when applied to anyone outside of Islam. There have been countless accounts of how Muslim terrorists have manipulated others in order to fulfill their end.
Taking into consideration all of Bin Laden's beliefs, we can now address the question of how we should handle him if we were to catch him.