Ernest Renan (1823–1892) and Jemal Nebez (1933-2018) have intricately conceptualized the notion of a nation, drawing parallels yet diverging in significant ways when scrutinized within their historical and political contexts. This comparative analysis seeks to unravel the descriptive and normative elements constituting their respective formulations of the nation. A critical assertion is made that categorizing Nebez solely as a primordialist theorist, a prevalent view among Kurdish scholars, is at best inaccurate and potentially misleading. Renan posits the nation as a soul forged through a dual temporal lens, rooted in a "rich legacy of memories" from the past and a contemporary consent to coexist, coupled with a shared appreciation for a common heritage. Similarly, Nebez aligns with a historical perspective, conceiving the Kurdish nation as a construct shaped by historical processes. The shared sense of Kurdness, according to Nebez, emerges through a complex historical trajectory, solidified by the present consent to transmit this heritage to future generations. Noteworthy is Nebez's distinction between nations with and without states, advocating for the realization of self-determination rights for 'stateless nations.' He questions the legitimacy of multination states, emphasizing the necessity of consent from non-sovereign constituent nations—an idea mirrored in Renan's emphasis on the legitimacy of the will as a criterion for nationhood. Despite these resonances, Nebez introduces unique elements to his conception of Kurdness, accentuating its profound ties to homeland, culture, and language alongside the collective will. This departure from Renan's framework, argued here, does not succumb to essentialism; rather, it stems from Nebez's contextualization of the Kurdish nation in a stateless condition. In this statelessness, homeland and language, far from being deemed essential, acquire heightened significance for the survival and freedom of the Kurdish nation. Nebez further justifies his formulation by drawing distinctions between the experiences of Kurdish and European societies in the modern era. While European states were predominantly shaped by bourgeois classes, Kurdish society, observes Nebez, sought to build a national state through its feudal structure. This observation, coupled with his nation-building conceptualization, leads Nebez to assert the critical importance of stateless nations attaining sovereignty within their territories. As a proponent of Kurdish unity, despite partitioning, Nebez advocates for a common language as a unifying force, aligning language with the essence of Kurdish nationhood