> It's too bad they didn't bring the body back to the US. I wouldn't consider Bin Laden to be a Muslim and therefore not deserving of a proper Muslim burial. I see no reason they should have disposed of him and prevented some sort of public verification.
They did not want the body to become a shrine to those who followed the ideology of Bin Laden, and they similarly did not want the picture(s) of his body to be iconography for that ideology. I know a lot of people disagree, but I can see very valid reasoning behind how they disposed of his body.
Bin Laden was a Wahhabi, as are the Saudi governing elite. Wahhabis are vehmently, even violently, opposed to any kind of "grave worship". As far as I know, even the kings of Saudi Arabia are buried in unmarked graves, and the Saudis would demolish the structure over Mohamed's grave if they had the chance. It is therefore extremely unlikely that Bin Laden's grave would have become a shrine if his corpse was returned to Saudi Arabia, which was the initial excuse given for the burial at sea.
> and the Saudis would demolish the structure over Mohamed's grave if they had the chance.
You mean the Al-Masjid an-Nabawi and the so called Green Dome under which Mohammed is buried? An area that has become a standard stop as the second holiest place in Islam in the muslim pilgrimage?
I do agree with you, that's the Saudi position and the green dome is an exception (which may one day end up stopping to be an exception), but so far they've spared it despite various calls to destroy it in the past, and rather have expanded the site in a massive way (not the tomb, but the mosque around it, which is visited becomes of veneration of Mohamed and visits to the tomb). If you had named any other person you'd have been right, but so far Mohamed seems to be an exception to the rule.
Regardless I don't think it mattered much. Take the holy site in Shia islam, the shrine of Husain ibn Ali for example, was first believed to have been marked with a berry tree. A few years later, a mosque was built, which roughly 100 years later was demolished and the berry tree cut down. People still kept visiting guided (it is said), by the traces of the berry tree. The caliph then ordered the tree to be cut out from the root to stop people from visiting. A few decades later a new mosque was built, which a few decades later still was destroyed and the land ordered to be ploughed (including the grave). Stuff like this went on for centuries, with new mosques being built and destroyed for political or religious reasons. I'm doubtless as to whether OBL's burial sight would've become a place of visitation and propaganda, it'd be inevitable to have created some following even if it was merely marked by GPS and barely any structure could be found at the sight because any structures would get removed. Burial at sea is the exception.
They did not want the body to become a shrine to those who followed the ideology of Bin Laden, and they similarly did not want the picture(s) of his body to be iconography for that ideology. I know a lot of people disagree, but I can see very valid reasoning behind how they disposed of his body.