While I think that’s interesting point, two things:

Destroyed swaths of people is dubious. Cultures, yes, men, yes, but peoples, no (hence the slaves but also why those lands were still administered by high ranking officials).

Essentially, I feel it’s whataboutism. There’s very good reason why it’s said the Philippines was conquered by friars, the Crusades weren’t caused by resources, and the age of Empire and the Atlantic slave trade were both back by the concept of monotheistic “other”.

Just because other ideologies (and theologies) have negative kernels, it does not excuse the vast negative issues the have directly born out of monotheistic religion as an aspect of otherhood and a sense of colonisation or superiority. That does not make them the sole source (the concept of land ownership, for example, is a non-theistic ideology that is used to cause group division and destruction). We could also talk about Manifest Destiny, as a non-religious movement (though it did have large religious support), but it’s not what I am talking about

Monotheism as it has manifested on the world stage has come with colonisation, destruction of old ideas, and entitled due to the other people being sinful heathens. It is a useful tool for the powerful (which is why we see the royal conversions in Europe, leading to internalised oppression of polytheistic beliefs). It is worth questioning.