Do religions believe in Philosophy category truth ?

I think the difference is that religion does not admit independent thought. It tells you what the answer is, and that answer is it. 

When you modify the answer it is either a heresy or another religion or sect. Religions only admit philosophising which supplements established creed, and this gets called theology or mysticism.

Philosophy as ordinarily envisioned admits many answers and discussions. It does not suppress independent thought. You are encouraged to question or doubt. There is a divide between analytic and continental. 

I am not as aware of the details as I would like. I might study up. The mind evolves. One becomes more studious. 

I have encountered the information. 

There may be outliers for what I have said. Maybe there are people which study religion which are independent and people which study philosophy and are quite entrenched. 

No, they don't ! They not want the ecumenism ( divine fraternity ).

Philosophies can be made from darkness and light but Quran touches the chore deep of human psyche, it penetrates the human psyche not only mentally but visually.. Try reading it at times, you will be mind blown by the similitudes.. 

When He talks about faith, He illustrates it with his other creations in the universe, it is just happening right in front of your eyes, something you can clearly see unless you are blind.

Religions are composed of individuals, or text(, or what?). Text is an inanimate object, and incapable of action, such as belief. Individuals believe variously.

Judging from what I've heard and read, I'd say there are a few individuals, that have some association to religion, that don't believe in some of the things that people honestly believe and express here in the philosophy category, nor in what some might interpret as classical philosophic tenets.

Jesus said He was the way, the truth and the life and that no one would come to the Father but by Him.  Refer to John 14:6. 

Not hard to see that, Everybody seems to be following something or someone because we are too lazy to think for ourselves. Religion? Its kind of a joke.You know with  religion playing a really big role in our lives. And the world in super big trouble. But we need not worry.

So the answer "(therefore) there is NO AGREEMENT UPON AN

INDEPENDENT CATEGORY CALLED KNOWLEDGE" agrees with my

own assessment which follows...

"..there is even a religious so-called philosopher whose contribution is 

nothing short of blasphemy in that it destroys the idea of useful progressive

philosophy...

OF A REAL PHILOSOPHY CATEGORY INDEPENDENTLY WORKING

(for an environmental good...)"  ^

^  my answer to the recent Q. "What solution do you think this world needs

    to restore Humanity".

 So i was right about j153e's negative answer that he truly believes that 

  THERE IS & SHOULD NOT BE A PHILOSOPHY CATEGORY...

  For there HAS BEEN AND SHOULD BE an actual good learning philosophy

  category and discipline that DOES WORK ; that can explain both some

  of humanity's many questions and also it's mistakes - some as questions

  of our mistakes and some of our discoveries.

  Such philosophy should be a CRITICAL ONE AND OF AN ANTICIPATORY

  objective kind ; a behavioural one that cannot only match that of existing

  subjective philosophies (j153e type) but more importantly provide help

  in the form of assistance to those New to philosophy here.

  Regarding the above this MAY NOT DETER mistaken subjectivists who

  may continue posting such juvenile mistakes POSING AS PHILOSOPHY.

  If they do so they should be "called out" and identified-if-not-exposed.

  And converted if possible to a more reasonable religion which DOES

  believe in knowledge-like-philosophy ; and where that can grow without

  hindrance so to speak. 

p.s.  For the record a "Philosophies" category is de facto for the named "Philosophy" category here, much as are the "Religions" category, the "Psychologies" category, etc.  Egotism is not the point of such awareness, however, there seems to be an abundance of same in the questioner's truth-claims.  Tossing words around without evident correlated knowledge of their meanings (e.g., "closed," "blasphemy") seems to indicate a fallacy of ad hominem name calling.  The lack of inferential logic is atrocious; e.g., "philosophy" as real-world topos = many philosophies, and that is the spirit and meaning applied herein.  Also, for the sake of accuracy, am not into the false dichotomy shtick of A and non-A, my so-called Objectivism > your so-called subjectivism; in point of fact, am not accepting of such a label, nor is it worthwhile mentioning, save for other readers who may be reading with genuine comprehension.

Many religions, many philosophies (not a univocal "religions' perspective," not a reified or self-imagined "Philosophy").

Therefore, there is no agreed upon "Independent" (why reify the notion of "independence" by capitalization?) category called "knowledge."  This ought be obvious to any attentive student of basic history of and descriptions of current philosophies).

What may be briefly said of e.g. Jewish mysticism (kabbalah), Christian, and Muslim religious positions (again, multivariate, not an oversimplified Judaism/Christianity/Islam), re a single knowledge or truth claim, follows.

Using the case of Plotinus:  Isaac Luria's perspective, which is the main current emphasis in Kabbalah, found many similarities with Plotinus' Nous as teaching return to One Mind Soul-realization.  Luria differentiated Plotinus' perspective of purification of sensibility ---> Realization, from additional Jewish ethical activity needed to restore purity.

Saint Augustine, and later Christian mystics such as Ficino, who translated all of Plato, Plotinus, and Proclus into Latin during the Renaissance, were majorly influenced by Plotinus and Neoplatonism (including Pythagorean) influences.

Early Medieval Islamic thinkers enthusiastically adopted Plotinus' insights, e.g., al-Kindi, al-Farabi and Ibn Sina (Avicenna), but not too much later the great thinker al-Ghazali pushed back against Plotinus and Neoplatonism, as he opined that a) Islam had become spiritually deficient and b) substituting Neoplatonism was not part of the correct solution.

So even within three great faith traditions, there is considerable variation re awareness of the great realization of Plotinus of gnosis by purification.

Therefore, the question's terms ("religions, Philosophy, knowledge") are insufficiently clearly set forth (indeed, not at all) in order to comprise a reasonably answerable question.  More precise delineation of terms--e.g. what is "Philosophy" for the deviser of the question; and, does the deviser have a clear working definition of the word he's employing...not to mention a clear and communicable notion of what is the implied essence of "Philosophy"?  These basic ingredients ought be a basic standard of clarity for questions employing words which are presently undefined in the question.

It ought be (especially) obvious in discussing philosophies that clarity re axioms and of definitions of key terms are primary, and that fallacies of overgeneralization, of lack of clarity, and of lack of precision are problems which need resolution before posing a question which puts forth grand terms such as "religions, Philosophy, and knowledge," and hopes or pretends to hope to receive some cogency in return.