Just offering some more background on the issue (and not defending the translation - and certainly not defending the decision!).
As it turns out, the equating of Verehrung and worship was not made by the Guardian, but by the European Court of Human Rights. I found the decision in German and in English on the website of the Court. I would assume (but cannot know for sure, of course), that the decision was first written in English and subsequently translated to German. If that is the case, it turns the translation issue on its head.
Here are the relevant passages from the decision:
The Court noted that the domestic courts comprehensively explained why they considered that the
applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not
been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child
marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad
was not worthy of worship.
Der Gerichtshof stellte fest, dass die innerstaatlichen Gerichte nachvollziehbar erläutert hatten,
warum sie die Aussagen der Beschwerdeführerin für geeignet hielten, berechtigte Verärgerung
hervorzurufen. Insbesondere waren sie nicht auf eine objektive Art und Weise getätigt worden, die
einer Debatte von öffentlichem Interesse gedient hätte (z.B. zum Thema Kinderehen), sondern
konnten nur so verstanden werden konnten, dass Mohammed der Verehrung nicht würdig sei.
