The issue of how the legacy of Islamic political thought was evaluated by Ottoman political thinkers is important for understanding how the Ottomans established contact with the scholar and intellectual accumulation that preceded them. Focusing on translations as one of the constitutive elements of Ottoman political thought, this study examines around 170 texts translated from Arabic and Persian in the field of political thought in the Ottoman Empire between the 14th and 18th centuries and focuses on the translation methods used by the translators who translated the works of Islamic political thought written in these two languages into Ottoman Turkish and what kind of changes they made while transferring the source text into Turkish. In this way, it is attempted to determine after which steps the translated works, which were one of the ways of producing political thought in the Ottoman Empire, were presented to the Ottoman agenda and what kind of contributions these works contain in terms of Ottoman political thought. This article, which limits itself to the texts of disciplines such as âdâb (siyasatnâme-nasihatnâme), philosophy-ethics, fiqh, hadith, and Sufism, first analyzes the information provided by a limited number of translators describing the translation procedure. Subsequently, the translated texts are compared with the source texts, and the translation methods of the translators are categorized under the headings of "literal translations", "free translations", "compilation type translations" and "partial/selected translations". The literal translation method is a method that mostly manifests itself in early translations and involves a very limited contribution of the translator. Free translations are a more widespread type of translation that spans all periods. Numerous examples show that Ottoman translators considered it sufficient to provide the meal-i munif of the texts as an extension of the practical benefit they expected from the book they were translating. The compilation type of translations, on the other hand, is characterized by the selection and translation of hadiths related to certain topics (such as imâma, obedience, jihad, justice, etc.). This can also be seen in the compilations of political advice works made from different political books written in Arabic and Persian. "Partial/selected translations", on the other hand, do not deal with work from beginning to end but translate a certain part of it in full. This method, which was frequently used by Ottoman translators, takes shape as an extension of the idea of "extending the benefit to everyone", which was one of the primary purposes of translating works. In this method, the translators omitted the parts that they considered useless or unnecessary, and limited themselves to translating the parts that would be of direct use to the addressee audience. Finally, some texts that present themselves as "original" without mentioning their relationship with "the source text" have been identified and these have been handled under the concept of "implicit translation". The second part of the article focuses on how translators take initiative in translation. In this part, the subject is examined under the following headings: "Interventions that improve or reduce and clean the text", "writing a separate introduction and conclusion to the translation, not translating the introduction of the author of the source text", "adding depth to the language and subject matter", "Domesticating (Hanafization and Ottomanization) of the text", "correction of the source text, criticism or justification of its claims", and "giving the translation an original name that often includes a reference to the source text". Subsequently, the subjection of translated texts to interlingual translation is discussed. Ottoman translators made important contributions to their translations, especially in terms of improving the text. In this respect, in addition to the practices such as opening up missing or closed issues, making the text comprehensible, and transferring additional anecdotes to deepen the subject, additions are also made to criticize the practices and practitioners of the period in which they are located and such practices can be found in almost every translated text. Again, for the views expressed in the texts translated for a Turkish and Hanafi audience to appeal to this audience, it is seen that these views in the texts containing the views of different sects are subjected to an operation that we can express as a kind of "Hanafization". In other words, the translators add the views of the Hanafi madhhab, which are not mentioned in the source text, to the translated text, and sometimes expand the subject in terms of Hanafism by referring to different Hanafi legal sources. Again, objections are raised to texts that contain statements against the Hanafi understanding, and these claims against Hanafism are answered. Thus, the translated text is adapted to the level of perception and acceptance of the Ottoman interlocutors. In addition to how the source texts were brought closer to the Ottoman interlocutors in terms of fiqh content within the framework of the emphasis on Hanafism, "Ottomanization" was also carried out in various ways. As a different dimension of the interventions made in the form of adaptation and addition to the text, issues of importance in the context of the Ottomans can be added to the translation. While doing this, special attention is given to examples selected from the Ottoman milieu or deemed acceptable by the Ottomans, and Ottoman-centered ideal sultan typologies are highlighted. There may also be additions that portray the Ottoman dynasty as the legitimate representatives of Islamic history. In these respects, in some cases, there is a significant departure from the source text and the translator's contribution becomes much more evident. Another indication of the Ottomanization process can be seen in the translations made by extracting from the source text. Thus, the focus is on what is meaningful/useful in the Ottoman context/specific to the addressee/audience, and issues that would pose a problem in this respect (such as the conditions required for the caliph and especially the issue of the Qurayshism of the caliphate) are omitted. Finally, the article touches upon the issue of which of the classical texts that are frequently referenced in contemporary Islamic political thought literature have not been translated into Ottoman Turkish, and it is determined that many classical texts that are considered important by contemporary Islamic political thought literature (such as Ibn Muqaffā, al-Farabi, Ibn Sina, Ibn Bājja, Mawardī, Ferrā, al-Juwaynī, and Ibn Jamā'a's works) were not translated by Ottoman translators. This situation necessitates a rethinking of the Mavardī and al-Farabi-centered historiography of political thought, which is the dominant conception of contemporary literature. When the translation preferences, procedures, and dispositions of the Ottoman translators are evaluated as a whole, it is understood that a significant portion of the translated texts constitutes an important part of Ottoman political thought as texts that were largely shaped by the contributions of the translators and that have originality. Therefore, any study that does not consider translated works or ignores the multidimensional aspect of these works will be far from reflecting the holistic picture of Ottoman political thought. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]