This article forms part of a three-part series examining Antun Saʿadeh’s position on women’s dignity. It draws on the author’s book, Syrian Women: Their Struggle in Society and Their Empowerment through the Syrian Social Nationalist Party.

Antun Saʿadeh’s opposition to the oppression of women was not an incidental position nor a sentimental gesture. It was a moral stance rooted in his understanding of dignity, courage, and social responsibility. For Saʿadeh, injustice against women—whether through abuse, coercion, or intimidation—w

as not a “private matter” to be ignored, but a collective ethical failure that demanded confrontation. Saʿadeh viewed the tolerance of women’s mistreatment as a form of moral cowardice. A noble individual, as inferred from his writings, could not remain neutral when faced with injustice. Silence in the face of abuse was itself a form of complicity. Consequently, Saʿadeh insisted that defending a woman subjected to violence or coercion was not an act of heroism reserved for the exceptional, but a duty incumbent upon every morally conscious person—even when such defense involved personal risk. Education occupied a central place in Saʿadeh’s approach to addressing women’s oppression. He understood that abusive behaviour is not merely an individual defect but the product of social conditioning and cultural decay. Through education, Saʿadeh sought to cultivate virtues such as courage, nobility, and readiness to act. These virtues were not theoretical ideals but practical dispositions, intended to shape conduct in moments of moral testing.

This ethical vision is clearly reflected in Saʿadeh’s literary work, particularly in his novella Eid Sayyidat Saydnaya. The protagonist, Ibrahim, embodies Saʿadeh’s conception of moral masculinity. When Ibrahim witnesses Najla being harassed and pressured into marriage, he does not retreat into passivity or rationalization. He intervenes decisively, even when intervention exposes him to mortal danger. Through Ibrahim’s actions, Saʿadeh presents an alternative model of manhood—one grounded not in dominance or control, but in responsibility and respect for women’s dignity.

In portraying such characters, Saʿadeh was not romanticizing violence or heroism. Rather, he was condemning a society that normalizes women’s suffering and rewards male indifference. His message is unmistakable: a society that abandons women to abuse has lost its moral compass, regardless of how loudly it proclaims tradition, honour, or virtue.