Not true. There is no religious text in the Bible, the Quoran, Hindu sacred texts, or any other that I know of, or Google informs us about that requires FGM of it's practitioners.

So no, you cannot use religious mumbo jumbo to justify FGM.

Although FGM is often perceived as being connected to Islam, perhaps because it is practiced among many Muslim groups, not all Islamic groups practice FGM, and many non-Islamic groups do, including some Christians, Ethiopian Jews, and followers of certain traditional African religions.

It's cultural, not religious.

Furthermore, if you think about it and apply basic common sense you can easily reason out that FGM would never be a sacrificial requirement in a Patriarchal religion. Dude. Think about it. The whole point of a sacrifice is to either get right with God or to seal a covenant promise. You have to be a person in your own standing to make that kind of covenant promise to God. And back then, women were legal property. So if women are the subject of any kind of sacrifice to God, it's the whole woman getting sacrificed, just like a lamb or a dove, and not some representative piece of flesh.

And in fact, that's what we have see in ancient patriarchal religions around the world. Lot of young and beautiful female virgins got sacrificed, bits of flesh, not so much.

Another point to that. If it's a religilus sacrifice of flesh, what happens to said flesh is important. Traditionally male foreskin was a ritualistically burnt offering, like doves. You didn't just toss the foreskin. If FGM had an equivalent religious importance, you'd expect the flesh to not be tossed out like trash, but to be "offered", right? I'd anyone reading this actually foolish enough to believe cut labia and clitorises are given as burnt offerings in the same manner?

Nope. They are not.

You boys should learn about what you're talking about before you hop up on that soapbox and make yourselves look ridiculous.