Reciting Al-Hamd and the Surah in the Noon (Zuhr) and Afternoon (Asr) prayers via Ikhfat (quiet recitation) is obligatory for the religiously accountable (Mukallafin). However, the ruling for recitation in the Noon prayer on Fridays is highly contested among jurists. Through examining the writings of Imami jurists, six opinions are found, with the prevailing view (Mashhur) asserting the "recommendability (Istihbab) of Jahr (audible recitation)." Using a descriptive-analytical method, this research precisely analyzes the relevant narrations and critiques the evidence of the Mashhur view. Relying on the prima facie meaning of imperative commands in authentic narrations and by challenging obstacles like Ijma' (consensus), the rule of "Law kana la-bana," and the Tawahhum al-Hazr (presumption of prohibition), the author argues that the evidence supporting recommendability cannot overcome the explicit narrations indicating obligation. Findings show that the claimed consensus on this issue is "documentary" (Madraki) and thus no barrier to deduction. Consequently, the article moves past the Mashhur view to establish a seventh opinion: the "obligation of Jahr in the recitation of the Friday Noon prayer." This study, while addressing key objections and demonstrating the invalidity of the consensus, proves that the correct jurisprudential necessity is a verdict of Jahr's obligation.