Dear, and respected . First of all, Thanks for assuming good faith.  
 On to the article then. I have multiple Issues with this article. The first is that "Blasphemy" should be translated as "impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things.". Because this is the first meaning. I would like to inquire why the fourth meaning, which is outdated and only rarely ever used, has been used here. Without reason this is bizarre. 
 Secondly, the deletion. 
 I deleted the Quranic verses which were used out of context. If you look closely at the section you will see that  
 "Saeed, Abdullah; Hassan Saeed (2004). Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam. Burlington VT: Ashgate Publishing Company." 
 Is not used as a source when the Quranic verse has been quoted.The reference ends before the Quranic verse. Hence the logical interpretation that his book does not contain the verse. The second reason to assume that his book does not contain any mention of Blasphemy is the very name of his book and his biography. The author has always been against punishment of apostasy and he is known to be a jurist who claims that punishments for apostasy and blasphemy are not present in Islam. So why on earth will he condone an act which he has opposed his whole life. Therefore the book has been used out on context here. 
 The Third Issue I have is with the Hadith and the Verse using the Arabic words which signify "PHYSICAL ASSAULT" instead of verbal blasphemy. This should be clear indicator of the fact that the punishment/retaliation is for physical actions. Like an eye for an eye. So using them here is out of context. 
 The Fourth Issue is that the Hadith is not used by any scholar. The source is good, but that only mentions the incident. The incident is of Ka'ab assaulting the muslims and the Prophet, which led to his killing. There is no mention of any blasphemy.  
 The Fifth issue is that; when the article itself states that there is no worldly punishment for blasphemy mentioned in Quran and Hadith then there should be no mention of any verse or hadith prescribing punishment. This issue is a minor one. when compared to others. 
 Therefore I am undoing the revert for the following reasons 
 1)The secondary source does not mention the Quranic verse 
 2)The secondary source for hadith, only mentions the incident. so using the incident here is original research. 
 3)The translation of blasphemy used should be the first one not the fourth one. 
 4)The words used in the Quranic verse and Hadith are for physical assault, so they should not be considered blasphemy. 
 P.S As I have provided a plethora of solid reasons I will edit the title of this section as well. I hope you don't mind.