Among the recommended ritual baths …
And among the recommended baths he writes under No. 1: “A group of scholars have maintained that the Friday ghusl (ritual bath) is obligatory ….”

I say: That is the correct view from which one should not deviate, for the hadiths establishing it possess stronger isnāds and are far clearer in meaning than the reports cited by those who regard the bath as merely recommended. Take, for instance, their appeal to the ʿUmar ḥadīth mentioned in the book: it is no proof for them; rather, it is evidence against them. ʿUmar’s open rebuke from the pulpit, in that large gathering, of so distinguished a Companion—and the silent approval of all the Companions and others present—is among the strongest indications that the obligation was well known to the Companions. Had they considered it non-obligatory, that Companion would not have based his excuse on the practice of another. After such an explicit objection, what “tacit approval” from ʿUmar and those present can anyone still claim?

The same goes for their citation of Abū Hurayrah’s report, “Whoever performs wuduʾ (ablution) and perfects it ….” Al-Ḥāfiẓ himself has already answered this in Fatḥ al-Bārī, saying: “The report does not exclude the bath. In another authentic route the wording is, ‘Whoever performs ghusl.’ It may therefore be that ablution is mentioned here for someone who had already taken a bath before setting out and thus needed only to renew his ablution.”

In short, the hadiths that explicitly declare the Friday ghusl obligatory contain an additional ruling not found in the narrations that merely recommend it; there is therefore no contradiction between the two sets of reports, and it is incumbent to act upon the ones that include the additional detail. For a detailed treatment, see Nayl al-Awtār by al-Shawkānī and al-Muḥallā by Ibn Ḥazm.