[rmnunez]

By your own admission, some Muslim countries have not been colonized, these should offer us nice examples of more tolerant Muslims, but they don't. Colonists in Muslim countries didn't always seek to convert the natives to Christianity. Colonists sent missionaries, but this was mostly to non Muslim places like Latin America, enclaves in South East Asia and Pacific Islands, not much of this sort of thing went on in North Africa, the Middle East or Persian Gulf.

No Christian colonists perceived of any need for forceful conversion of Muslims, nor was such ever undertaken. In India the the British respected local practices, the Spanish colonists who were Catholic and hence Christians, did forcibly convert natives, but these weren't Muslims, and that was about 300 hundred years earlier (when that sort of thing was okay).

You just have to look at the dates of colonization and consider the relationship of Church and State in the colonizing power. The British have a sui generis situation with the monarch as Pope for Anglicans, but its not like the crown has ever placed any importance in religious pursuits, certainly not in its colonizing which was strictly mercantilistic. The French disengaged the Church with Richellieu, they weren't out on any missions either. The Portuguese may have been like the Spanish when they got to Brazil, but by the time they got to Angola or Mozambique it was a different story, and again, those aren't Muslims.

There is no evidence to sustain a claim of forcible conversion of Muslims by Christian colonialists since the Crusades.