I know your English has some issues, but please try to understand me.
I'm not saying that all the Muslims in these countries were converted at the point of a sword. What I'm saying is that conquest and social and economic pressures served to first expose them to Islam, and then encourage their conversion to it (in many of these states, a Muslim would have many more economic opportunities, would be able to a get a place in the royal court, etc.). So in cases such as India and Spain, which I am more familiar with, it was beneficial to convert to Islam for material reasons, and the initial exposure to Islam and the adoption of that system and social structure was brought on by the conquest of their lands by Muslim rulers, who brought with them substantial numbers of Muslim settlers from elsewhere, in many cases.
This is not black and white 'conversion at sword/gunpoint' vs. 'conversion utterly peacefully and with no pressures'. There are a lot of shades of grey here.