Falahat shifts comparative urbanism from the circulation of cases to the politics governing the terms under which urban knowledge becomes intelligible. Her central claim is that a plural urban conversation cannot be produced simply by adding geographically diverse examples to an epistemic framework whose categories remain historically Eurocentric. The operative distinction is between the content of a conversation and its terms: assumptions, vocabularies, institutions and representational infrastructures determine which forms of knowledge can appear as theory and which must first be translated into an already dominant language. She therefore calls for historically and culturally grounded co-production in which local archives, concepts, cosmologies and modes of thought enter urban theory with their own genealogies intact. Methodologically, comparison becomes inseparable from epistemic location and representational power. The paper’s wider bridge is to decolonial geography: a genuinely comparative urbanism must examine not only differences between cities, but the unequal infrastructures through which some urban experiences acquire universal theoretical status.