I have already explained the sourcing issue as it may pertain to the specific name "Khalid" I am satisfied with the explanation, and I have nothing material to add. I do wish to emphasize that although I was speaking of non-Muslim sources, there is no reason to discount naming identification in the Muslim sources, since they should have been aware of who their own rulers and generals were, and since nobody doubts that these rulers and generals conquered territory about the size of the modern USA in the 150-200 years after Mohammed's death. This site probably has as much as an English speaker could hope for on the internet; Islamic history sources I do not know what term they used, but there were certainly people who identified themselves as followers of the religion founded by Mohammed, namely Islam. Yes there was, and Khalid was active under the leadership of the first two successors of Mohammed, namely Abu Bekr and Omar (spelling may vary according to translitration system). Feast your eyes on all the records in the link provided: Islamic history sources And note that there is one for the Muslim conquest of Egypt written by Copts. Here it is again, take a look: Islamic history sources Addressed. The events are uncontroversial, and your speculation about them is absurd.