If the religion or philosophy called for its adherents to kill someone else as a first resort, I’d find that immoral. If the religion had everyone commit suicide, that would be immoral.
However, religions are no different than states. States all think they are right and everyone else is wrong. Religions mostly do the same thing. The point is that both states and religions essentially represent the public face of the people who comprise the entity.
Both might develop a sophisticated set of laws, but that’s all they are: human-invented laws. Of course, they claim that the almighty is behind them as an attempt at legitimacy. This allows them to assert that their laws are the best and should be followed by everyone else.
The almighty was invented as a trump card. The nation/religions are like children, squabbling over power. “My Dad has a Chevy.” “Yeah, well my Dad has a Volvo.” “My Dad has a Caddilac,” etc, etc. The idea of the almighty is better than a Ferrari. No one can trump it.
Insofar as religions and philosophies serve to allow a people to impose their will on others, in my mind, they are immoral. Any religion or philosophy used to justify a war is immoral. Bush used the philosophy of Democracy to justify an invasion of Iraq, an immoral intervention.
I am not separating the philosophy from the advocates of the philosophy. We can endlessly go around saying that Leninism isn’t communism and Maoism isn’t communism, so communism has never been tried. Same with religion. The fatwas are not an appropriate use of Islam; the Crusades were a misuse of Christianity. I don’t care. You can never settle the fight of what an “ism” is when there are different versions. People use it for their own purposes, so if people are immoral, then the religion or philosophy used to justify their actions is immoral.