This paper deals with the debatable notion of the interrelationship between ideology and translation. In other words, which should be given the priority in the translation practice when the translator renders an ideological text: translation of ideology or ideology of translation? In this paper, the ideology meant is feminism or more specifically the feminist theory of translation. To put it more clearly, should the translator, whether a male or a female, render a feminist text depending on the (professional) principle that translation should be an objective, unbiased practice, devoid of any ideological domination? Or should ideology have the upper hand?   This paper is also a modest attempt to reach a model that can be used in the translation of feminist literature in general and feminist fiction in particular. The core of this model is to keep the distinctive feminist spirit of the source text as much as possible. That is to say, rendering a feminist text should not be a localization of a foreign idea for a new audience which makes it something other than a translation. What we need is naturalizing the whole target text for the target reader. This happens when the translator gives priority to the translation of ideology over the ideology of translation. This definitely does not mean that such a model will eliminate the loss expected in rendering feminist literature because there is an inevitable degree of loss involved in the translation of literary works in general and feminist literature in particular due to the linguistic and cultural differences between languages.              The texts selected for this study are The Golden Chariot by Salwa Bakr published in 1991(edition used is that of 2004), The Tent by Miral Al-Tahawy published in 1996 (edition used is that of 1999) and Leaves of Narcissus by Somaya Ramadan published in 2001(edition used is that of 2002). The three novels were translated by Dinah Manisty in 1995, Anthony Calderbank in 2000 and Marilyn Booth in 2002 respectively