This study reconstructs a model for adjudicating science–religion relations whose units of analysis are claims, methods, values, and institutions rather than two homogeneous domains. It asks how a minimally unified reality can be combined with methodological plurality and the fallibility of human understanding, and how later audiences can assess claims attributed to revelation. The method combines conceptual analysis, normative reconstruction, comparison with the closest rivals, and a case study. The model rests on constrained methodological pluralism and the principles of non-substitution and asymmetric competences. It distinguishes the event of revelation, prophetic reception and proclamation, transmission of a carrier, and later interpretation. Applying an eight-stage protocol to brain death separates medical agreement about neurological status from philosophical and juristic disagreement about death and from conditional legal-institutional authorization. The contribution is reconstructive, combinatorial, and operational: the model identifies the locus of disagreement, bridge premises, responsible epistemic agents, and stopping points without claiming general superiority or representing a single Islamic position.