From around the end of the 1st/7th century onwards, Muslim scholars composed works praising the qualities of the earliest Muslim sovereigns and lauding their merits. The virtues of these rulers were enumerated and considered as proof of the legitimacy of their reigns. In later centuries, Muslim scholars, in particular the fuqahā’, came to describe in great detail the characteristics required in an individual to be considered a legitimate candidate for political office. Some of the requirements were of a physical nature and specified that the sovereign should be a man in complete physical and mental health. As a corollary of this, any ruler who would lose certain aspects of his physical health, in particular his eyesight, was declared no longer suitable for rule. He was deposed and replaced. These stipulations had the ultimate goal of securing for the community a suitable and competent sovereign capable of meeting the demands of his position. However, beginning in the 4th/10th century, opponents to reigning sovereigns succeeded in deposing them by forcefully blinding them. The Muslim jurists could only concede to the fait accompli. Hence, a legal tenet which was meant to safeguard the well-being of the Muslim community was distorted by political adversaries to delegitimize a ruler and dethrone him. The first victims were three ‘Abbāsid caliphs, followed by Būyid and Sāmānid amīrs, all in the 4th/10th century. This type of mutilation for political purposes continued in the eastern Islamic lands until the 19th century. This paper will first discuss the relevant directives regarding the eligibility and disqualification of candidates to political office as described in the two works by the renowned Muslim jurists al-Māwardī (d. 450/1058) and al-Farrā’ (d. 458/1066), both entitled al-Aḥkām al-Sulṭāniyya (The Ordinances of Government). Following the narratives found in historical chronicles, the paper will then provide historical examples from the 4th/10th century in which Muslim caliphs and amīrs were blinded so that they could be legally deposed. The paper then discusses the reasons why this particular type of mutilation was adopted and how successful it was at achieving its objectives. By looking at ḥadīth collections and books on the Sīra (life) of the Prophet Muḥammad, the paper shows that there was not total unanimity amongst jurists with regards to the legitimacy of the rule of a blind man. In rare cases, and when appropriate circumstances presented themselves, a blind man was allowed to govern.