You can get the same answer as Nintegrate by finding the indefinite integral and then using limits

int = Integrate[fSine0[x]*fSine0[1/10 - x], x];
(Limit[int, x -> 2] - Limit[int, x -> -2]) // N
   (*0.444207 + 0. I*)

Which is even more accurate than Nintegrate. I do not know now why it gave 0.444207 - 1.815 I . may be branch cut issue.

The symbolic indefinite integral is quite a beast, and includes imaginary terms. This is common: mathematics often forces Mathematica to express a real result in terms of complex numbers. Unfortunately, in this difficult case, Mathematica also seems to misplace a branch cut when computing the definite integral. That's fairly common. You could report it as a bug, and maybe someone will figure out a way to fix this case.

The break points in Piecewise are at the singularities. That's tough for both symbolic and numerical methods. Here, NIntegrate appears by default to do some symbolic processing at the singularities to help out. It apparently has to go complex here, and the poorly cancelled imaginary part results. If you set Method -> {Automatic, "SymbolicProcessing" -> False} you'll get a real result of poor accuracy after complaints of slow convergence.

You can get a better symbolic result by using HeavisidePI instead of Piecewise here:

fSine[x_] := HeavisidePi[x/2]/(\[Pi]*Sqrt[1 - x^2])
Integrate[fSine[x]*fSine[1/10 - x], {x, -2, 2}] // N
NIntegrate[fSine[x]*fSine[1/10 - x], {x, -2, 2}]
(*0.444207 + 0. I*)
(*NIntegrate::slwcon: Numerical integration converging too slowly; suspect one of the following: singularity, value of the integration is 0, highly oscillatory integrand, or WorkingPrecision too small. >>*)
(*NIntegrate::ncvb: NIntegrate failed to converge to prescribed accuracy after 9 recursive bisections in x near {x} = {-0.8985}. NIntegrate obtained 0.4371297669288421` and 0.0061209610092931716` for the integral and error estimates. >>*)
(*0.43713*)

HeavisidePI tends to be more friendly to calculus than Piecewise. You still get the +0. I in the numerical result from the symbolic integral because it involves complex numbers whose imaginary parts cancel. If that's a problem, use Chop or Re when you know the result is real. The NIntegrate result isn't so good with HeavisidePI. It's similar to the result using Piecewise without symbolic processing: real but innaccurate. Some Method setting might work better: there are so many because there's no predicting what method might work best.

Seems like Mathematica should clean up after itself better, wrt the small imaginary part. I’ll send a bug report—at least the symbolic version should get fixed.

One trouble here is that the underlying 1/(\[Pi]*Sqrt[1 - x^2]) has branch points at ±1. If you ask for an approximate result, it's very hard to automatically deduce that the very large imaginary values just beyond the branch points don't matter. And then, the numerical approximation itself involves complex numbers. So, even if the cancellation seems perfect, Mathematica throws in a 0. I just to be sure that further processing does not assume that the imaginary part is guaranteed to be zero. Use Chop.

I'd guess that the branch cut issue that apparently troubles the symbolic calculation must seem like a whack-a-mole game to the Mathematica developers: I don't believe there is any known algorithm here, so it must involve a lot of heuristics. Sometimes those will be wrong.

FWIW this example comes out of finding the PDF for a sum of random sine variables—convolution. I have a fallback method that doesn’t do the convolutions.

That kind of problem often works better in the domain of "generalized functions". By feeding HeavisidePi to Integrate, you're hinting that's what you want. However, using operations like Convolve and FourierTransform in place of explicit integrals, you'd push it harder in that direction. Integrate tries to give you a symbolic solution, but it doesn't really apply a particular definition of "integration" to a particular definition of "function". That's also heuristic.

This might be useful:

 fSine[x_] := HeavisidePi[x/2]/(\[Pi]*Sqrt[1 - x^2]);
    Chop@N[Integrate[fSine[x]*fSine[1/10 - x], {x, -2, 2}], 20]

and

N[Quiet[NIntegrate[fSine[x]*fSine[1/10 - x], {x, -2, 2}, WorkingPrecision -> 45, MaxRecursion -> 1000]], 20]

both give:

0.44420658153737745178

These work both with the Heaviside definition. We can achieve something similar with the original Piecewise definition.

fSine[x_] := 
  Piecewise[{{1/(\[Pi]*Sqrt[1 - x^2]), -1 < x < 1}, {0, True}}];

Integrate[fSine[x]*fSine[1/10 - x], {x, -2, 2}, 
  GenerateConditions -> False, PrincipalValue -> True];
Chop@N[%, 20]

which gives:

0.44420658153737745178

,too.

Cheers,

Marco

PS: Oh, yes, and

SetPrecision[N[Simplify@Integrate[fSine[x]*fSine[1/10 - x], {x, -2, 2}, GenerateConditions -> False, PrincipalValue -> True], 60], Infinity]

suggests that the imaginary part is really zero...