No, they weren’t, which is why he was known as a notoriously cruel administrator by contemporary Europeans, which was a substantial factor in his being removed as governor, arrested, and returned to Spain in chains.
Columbus the Four Voyages by Laurence Bergreen details this and many many more extremely interesting details about Columbus.
1. Arab slavers who made eunuchs of their captured (kidnapped) slaves, and
2. the Mesoamerican civilizations whose religious imperative was to keep their sacred pyramids constantly covered in flowing human blood
The corollary of your point, even if it was a fair and accurate assessment of Columbus' affairs, would be that Europeans were otherwise moral judges -- although by today's standards I'm sure you'd also condemn them just the same.
Columbus was a product of his times, as were the slavers and the natives.
You seem to be retreating from the claim that Columbus’s behavior as governor was in line with the universal practice of his time to the much weaker and less controversial claim that it was both in some way influenced by the social context of his time and not uniquely bad in the contemporary (overlapping) “European and Muslim” world.
Which, sure, nice motte and bailey, Columbus was quite possibly not the single most abusive European and/or Muslim territorial governor of the late 15th Century.
(You also seem to want to argue about claims about Mesoamerican civilizations which I did not argue against, for whatever reason.)
Therefore "Columbus was bad" can't be meaningfully correct, unless we're presupposing a moral frame that stands outside of one's time and one's contemporaries -- and if we're doing that, I'll have a lot of other comments.