Islam contains a lot of contradictions and ambiguities within its scriptures (as does Christianity and Judaism). E.g. gender roles and justice can elicit competing interpretations among scholars of Islam. Not to mention the wide diversity within Islam - Sunni, Shia, Sufi, and other branches with differing doctrines.

Having been raised Catholic, then rejecting Christianity upon being confirmed in the Church and surveying the world's religions, I've found the Buddhist tradition to give the most satisfying and complete answers about these questions, with a minimum of contradiction. In truth Buddhism is less a religion and more a philosophy, which resonates with my 21st century sceptical self.

All that to say, I wouldn't put too much stock in 'the newest' religion, but rather consider that some group of people answered these questions when they were first considered, long ago. To my mind the Buddhists accomplished that feat.

I mean, it's still a 1400 year old religion. It's never going to be as fit for the times as it would be if it were designed right now.

I don't believe Buddhism has an equivalent to the holy book, or quite as many prescriptions in the first place, so it's much easier to adapt.

> They wouldn’t make the same mistakes they made 600 or 4000 years previous.

You would think that, except that an "extremist" Christian who only interpreted the New Testament literally would be a forgiving, loving, peaceful ascetic.

The youngest religion is probably something silly like the people who say they are jedi from Star Wars. Though I'm of the opinion the old ones are mostly silly, too.